Is evolution a fact?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by DPrice

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by borntowatch
 


No, your assumption is flawed.

Believing that evolution says that one animal changes into another is a typical creationist error.

Evolution is about diversification, hence the dog analogy. With time species adapt and diversify, eventually those adaptations become characteristic of a particular species, thus singling them as unique.

The zebra is a good example, clearly a member of the horse family, but why the stripes? Have a think about it.


Evolution states animals evolve (change) into more complex animals. Are you saying it doesnt


A striped horse is a horse, not a moo cow, not a monkey or a fish....flawed.
Clearly a member of the horse family, not a new species
Micro evolution is not macro evolution. You work it out
This is a pointless argument, evolution is a faith, you believe it.
I choose my faith.Good onya, believe what you want


They evolve to suit their surroundings. Please do more research into things so as not to look foolish.


So they evolve in to what??? Horses with different patterns and sizes???.
Thats not the issue with evolution, the issue is when has a horse turned into another species, or any other animal turned into another species for that matter?

Can you explain your understanding of evolution as I think you are talking micro evolution and I accept that as fact, I dont accept all the other types of evolution.




posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockintitz
I'd like to bring forth an unforgiving point in the "evolutionist" backslash "evolutionist" viewpoint. I have never heard a solid argument against this.

Please do not say evolution is a fact, because it isn't. If you can prove to me 100% that evolution is indeed a fact, then please do.


www.talkorigins.org...

Let's start with this. Please debunk this evidence for evolution. If it's some random guess, then surely at least 5 or 6 of these 29 items can easily be shown to be false.


Please explain to me how living matter can arise through non-living matter. Please. So far no evolutionary theorists have ever given a mechanism for that to happen. Please provide a link.

Abiogensis is not the same thing as evolution. This is like the most common misconception about it and you obviously have not even attempted to do any unbiased research on the subject. That much is clear.


Please explain how the Cambrian explosion could have occurred through what even Darwin called an anomaly, more or less.

Please explain your exact problems with the cambrian explosion and please cite your resources.


According to the anthropic principle, life would not, nor could not, produce life forms as we know them, if the parameters of our universe were not so precisely "fine-tuned" to be able to create life. The anthropic principle, as it is now, undeniable. Life as we know it is due to an entirely incomprehensible set of laws. So please explain, through natural processes, why life is an inevitable probability.
Please explain what this has to do with evolution. The universe is HUGE. Even if live has a .0000001% chance, it IS inevitable because there will be that many chances.


I've heard many times from evolutionists how life is inevitable. More than that, I've actually heard from many evolutionary scientists, that the evolutionary theory, is in fact, a fact.
Please, please prove that. Because as far as I know, earth is the only planet you can use to back your theory up with.

If life weren't inevitable, we wouldn't be here.


So according to "fact" Life can arise from a non-living object into living matter. (Which has never, EVER been proven" mind you.) but still, I defy you to find me a scientific experiment where life can be created out of non-living matter.
Okay, you already said it and it's been answered above. Abiogenesis IS NOT evolution. Stop with the false comparisons and straw mans.


Look, I'm not trying to prove what is or what was. All I'm asking is for you to provide an undeniable link as to what is declared as fact.

What is an evolutionary fact? I haven't seen one yet.

I don't believe which way or the other, but I do believe that if you call it a fact, then it should be a fact,

I VERY HIGHLY DOUBT that you don't believe one way or another. It seems pretty obvious that you've already made up your mind, despite having little knowledge of evolution itself.

Start with my link above and please dispute it. Show me exactly which facts are wrong and explain why and cite your sources that prove it and support your alternate explanation. If you can do this, you will have done more than any creationist ever has in regards to providing facts. Evolution is SCIENTIFIC theory. Scientific theories by definition are BASED ON FACTS. If not, it would be a hypothesis or guess. Here's the link again. I will be awaiting your debunk.

www.talkorigins.org...

So far, no creationist has ever debunked this or even made an attempt. Usually when I post it, it's either ignored or instantly dismissed with no explanation. Good luck. It's now on you.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Most of these thread and spent explaining Abiogenesis is not Evolution, then another half explaining why monkeys are still here concept.

reply to post by borntowatch
 


Do you think wolves and dogs are the same species?

Did you know dogs never existed?

Or are you going to call Wolf to Dog a micro evolution? lol

Anti-Evolutionist use this Micro/Macro evolution as a way to discredit the entire theory and cherry pick and separate the ones that support it. "Oh sht, this supports it, better label it something else and tare it away from the theory"



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MadMax7
Evolutionists have a 'faith' in belief greater than that of any creationist. That is a fact.

No it's not a fact because evolution is a scientific theory based on fact. THAT is a fact.
at needing faith to believe proven science experiments and objective evidence.


1. Why did it want to get out of the water in the first place?

If you think evolution is based on what creatures WANT to do, you need to seriously do some reading.


2. Without legs and lungs it can’t walk or breathe so in trying to get out it dies. Billions and billions of fish later they develop legs. Hang on- evolution is in the breeding! So how does the dead fish pass on its discovery that it is dying and needs legs and the ability to breathe air to it’s offspring it will never have?

It becomes clearer and clearer that you haven't even read basic fundamentals of evolution, yet you are attacking it. Familiarize yourself with the theory first. It's not about wanting legs. Amphibians were the intermediate between land and sea life because they could survive in BOTH environments. Obviously amphibians developed first, but all you are doing is looking at the beginning and end results and going 'huh!?". Chances are the fish that became amphibians ended up in a land locked body of water that slowly evaporated or dried out over millions of years. The water became shallow, and limbs became more useful than fins for movement. This helped with the transition to land. Fish have been discovered in the fossil record with legs. How do you explain this?


4. There is no geological record of evidence for the origin of fish. When they first appeared they were 100% fish.

The earliest fish fossils come from around the time of the Cambrian explosion.


5. There is geological record of amphibians in layers above fish. How did the parent come before the offspring?
Please source this claim. You are telling me that amphibians were around before the Cambrian explosion?


6. Coelacanth were supposed to have evolved into amphibians millions of years ago. In 1938 they found them still alive in the Indian Ocean with absolutely no change. It is surely strange that the coelacanth could remain so stable all this time, both genetically and morphologically, while its cousin the rhipidistian was supposedly evolving the mind-boggling number of changes required to transform it eventually into a human.

Please give me the source that says they were exactly the same with "absolutely no change". I'd like to see that. Regardless, change is dictated by the environment.. If the environment stays stable for the creature, they will continue to live there and have no need for evolution. This is also the case with white sharks. Evolution takes over during big environmental changes. What probably happened is that the populations of this fish were split up into 2 groups and 1 moved to a different environment and adapted.

And please stop with the hasty broad generalizations. Fish didn't turn into humans. Humans were the "final" result of millions upon millions of years of evolution from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals to apes to hominids to humans and even that is missing many details.. Cutting out all the intermediate stages shows your agenda here, and it's obviously not an honest one.


7. If people don’t believe in a God, why do they come up with explanations for existence that are even more preposterous in the belief level. Evolution requires more faith and has less evidence than creation by a higher power.

That's a lie. Evolution has mountains upon mountain of evidence for it.
at faith for believing proven science. I posted the link in the post above this one. Please read it and if you disagree, post where and why.


8. From a creation point of view the coelacanth reproduced after it’s own kind and from a evolutionary point of view did so for a very very very long time.

I'm not even sure what your point is on this one.


9. Fossils themselves say evolution did not happen. The laws of evolution would mean that every stage of development would be in evidence. It isn’t. 1 does not mean 10 in a scale of obvious thought. To get to 10 you must first go from 1-9. Where is 1-9? We’ll they haven’t found them yet!

More lies. The fossil record clearly shows slow change over time. Denying that is like denying gravity.
What "laws of evolution" are you referring to? Can you please cite where the "law of evolution" states that we would be able to find every single creature to ever exist in the history of planet earth? You do realize that fossilization is a rare process right?

en.wikipedia.org...

Let's put this to bed right here. We have found TONS of transitional fossils. Just because we haven't found them all, doesn't mean it's wrong.
edit on 26-4-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymousman


"If anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me. Because I make molecules for a living".

Bahahahahaha! I'm sorry but evolution is related to BIOLOGY and GENETICS, not chemistry. It's not about mixing molecules, it's about biological diversity, based on genetic changes and natural selection. This guy is a moron. This guy is not talking about evolution, he's talking about abiogenesis again. Why do people have soooo much difficulty understanding that they are different things. It has nothing to do with molecules, LOL. People like this make scientists look bad. He basically said " I don't understand". Too bad for you. I'm not a scientist and I understand! What a joke. Plus he generalizes atheists as evolution believers and vice versa. He might know how to make molecules, but beyond that he needs to shut up and read a book. Geez.
edit on 26-4-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
People change shape within a couple generations because of their genetics. The theory is just a theory and cannot be turned into fact unless you change the definition of a fact. The theory is full of possible flaws, like the possibility of rapid evolution within a couple generations because of certain situations. The theory was written before the rest of the genome was acknowledged as important, the junk DNA separates us from apes more than anything else.

Nobody can convince me that this theory of evolution is a fact. Sorry I can't help you with the evidence you need. I don't believe creationism is real as stated by most people either. I believe that the structured energy of the universe created everything as it interacted with the elements, that structured energy is god. Chaos could be considered the devil I supposed if you believe we came from chaos.


You should read up on what a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is. It's based on facts. The typical "it's just a theory" excuse. I wonder when anybody will provide any actual science that goes against evolution or toward another theory. Yeah, good luck with that.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sulaw
Until I see a fricken ape walk out of the congo with a cigar in his mouth, talking cantonees or whatever native language is around. I'm going with a big fat, NO it's not fact.

The theory behind evolution is one thing but hardly close to hiting the nail on the coffin.


I apologize for so many responses in a row, but this one of the most absurd things I've read. Evolution is false because apes don't talk and smoke cigars and speak in Chinese dialects? And this post got 2 stars? What?



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MadMax7
Evolutionists have a 'faith' in belief greater than that of any creationist. That is a fact.

Lets examine the structure of evolution. A fish eventually becomes a land animal as over millions of years it develops feet instead of fins and lungs instead of gills so it can survive on the land.


Lets do it together!


1. Why did it want to get out of the water in the first place?


It's a little known fact that Fish living in the Ocean do not get a lot of sunlight for the most part. Scientists theorize that lacking in Vitamin D and merely wanting a ray or two (of sunshine) is what caused the first fish to leave the water.



2. Without legs and lungs it can’t walk or breathe so in trying to get out it dies. Billions and billions of fish later they develop legs. Hang on- evolution is in the breeding! So how does the dead fish pass on its discovery that it is dying and needs legs and the ability to breathe air to it’s offspring it will never have?


The dying fish in their death-throes would communicate with the fish still in the water that they do indeed need for legs and lungs through a series of fin flapping and flips.


3. The argument is fish became amphibians


This is indeed true, through the metamorphosisical process of shape-shifting, fish became amphibians.


4. There is no geological record of evidence for the origin of fish. When they first appeared they were 100% fish.


Again another example of the metamorphosisical process of shape-shifting

100% sea blob -------> 100% fish


5. There is geological record of amphibians in layers above fish. How did the parent come before the offspring?


The only reason evolutionists can give for this unexplained phenomenon is some kind of global catastrophe, or frogs raining from the sky, that type of thing.


6. Coelacanth were supposed to have evolved into amphibians millions of years ago. In 1938 they found them still alive in the Indian Ocean with absolutely no change. It is surely strange that the coelacanth could remain so stable all this time, both genetically and morphologically, while its cousin the rhipidistian was supposedly evolving the mind-boggling number of changes required to transform it eventually into a human.


The Coelacanth really let the evolutionist's team down here, either that or they didn't get the memo. Imagine what they could've evolved into??


7. If people don’t believe in a God, why do they come up with explanations for existence that are even more preposterous in the belief level. Evolution requires more faith and has less evidence than creation by a higher power.


This one's easy, they HATE God. Even though they don't believe in him!!!


8. From a creation point of view the coelacanth reproduced after it’s own kind and from a evolutionary point of view did so for a very very very long time.


See above


9. Fossils themselves say evolution did not happen. The laws of evolution would mean that every stage of development would be in evidence. It isn’t. 1 does not mean 10 in a scale of obvious thought. To get to 10 you must first go from 1-9. Where is 1-9? We’ll they haven’t found them yet!


You've obviously not seen the Crocoduck or Bullfrog fossils.

At the end of this what can we conclude?

That the vast majority of the worlds scientists are in-fact god-hating atheists and there's a massive global conspiracy by those atheists to lie to the worlds population in order have them also not believe in God.

The answer?

A global Flood leaving only 8 true believers to repopulate the earth.

It's the only way to be sure....



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by rickymouse
People change shape within a couple generations because of their genetics. The theory is just a theory and cannot be turned into fact unless you change the definition of a fact. The theory is full of possible flaws, like the possibility of rapid evolution within a couple generations because of certain situations. The theory was written before the rest of the genome was acknowledged as important, the junk DNA separates us from apes more than anything else.

Nobody can convince me that this theory of evolution is a fact. Sorry I can't help you with the evidence you need. I don't believe creationism is real as stated by most people either. I believe that the structured energy of the universe created everything as it interacted with the elements, that structured energy is god. Chaos could be considered the devil I supposed if you believe we came from chaos.


You should read up on what a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is. It's based on facts. The typical "it's just a theory" excuse. I wonder when anybody will provide any actual science that goes against evolution or toward another theory. Yeah, good luck with that.


The same facts can be applied to many theories, some unthought of yet. When everything fits into a theory than it is right. Not everything fits into the theory of evolution as it stands.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
The thing that I find funny about these arguments is that creationist try as hard as they can to misstate or not understand what the theory of evolution really is.

Here is a logical statement that sums up my view. If God exists and evolution exists then evolution is Gods tool.

I don't think that God intended us to stop thinking because of the Bible. The creation myth in the Bible is just that. It shouldn't affect your belief in God. It's just that people 4 or 5 thousand years ago did not even have the vocabulary to discuss evolution let alone correctly write a scientific paper on it.

I was raised in a pretty fundamentalist church. However creationism was not an article of faith. To me Creationists are no different then the religious people of their day who thought that the earth was the center of the Universe and for someone to say otherwise was heretical.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
Not everything fits into the theory of evolution as it stands.

Like what?



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rockintitz
 


I'd like to bring forth an unforgiving point in the "evolutionist" backslash "evolutionist" viewpoint. I have never heard a solid argument against this.

Please do not say evolution is a fact, because it isn't. If you can prove to me 100% that evolution is indeed a fact, then please do.

Based on the remainder of your post, it sounds like you’re looking for some kind of confirmation that the theory of evolution is a fact. It’s not. No scientific theory is a fact -- not the theory of gravity, not atomic theory, not cell theory.

A fact is an objective and verifiable observation which is independent of the observer. In this sense, evolution is a fact -- it has been observed.

A scientific theory is a unifying framework explaining facts, laws, and hypotheses. In this sense, there is also a theory of evolution -- an overarching framework used to explain the observations regarding the phenomenon of evolution.


Please explain to me how living matter can arise through non-living matter. Please. So far no evolutionary theorists have ever given a mechanism for that to happen. Please provide a link.

What you are describing is abiogenesis. This is a concept distinct from evolution. Evolution is, simply put, a shift in allele frequency within a given population over successive generations.


Please explain how the Cambrian explosion could have occurred through what even Darwin called an anomaly, more or less.

Darwin was not the final authority on the theory of evolution. He didn’t put the period on the final chapter of the theory of evolution and call it done. Quite the opposite. It’s why it’s not even called Darwin’s theory of evolution anywhere but in the popular press. It’s more accurately referred to as modern evolutionary synthesis and incorporates concepts that Darwin wasn’t even aware of, like DNA and genetics.


According to the anthropic principle, life would not, nor could not, produce life forms as we know them, if the parameters of our universe were not so precisely "fine-tuned" to be able to create life. The anthropic principle, as it is now, undeniable. Life as we know it is due to an entirely incomprehensible set of laws. So please explain, through natural processes, why life is an inevitable probability.

The anthropic principle is a tautology, not a scientific concept -- "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist". If you want to argue “fine-tuning”, I can just as easily argue that we’re only one universe in an infinite multiverse, therefore it’s no surprise that at least one of the universes in that multiverse would have the correct conditions for supporting life.

Or, as Douglas Adams put it:

... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'


I've heard many times from evolutionists how life is inevitable. More than that, I've actually heard from many evolutionary scientists, that the evolutionary theory, is in fact, a fact.

No theory is a fact. Either you were confused about the context they were using or they misspoke. Can you show where an evolutionary scientist has stated that the theory of evolution is a fact?



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
This thread is getting nowhere. I am tired of this stupid discussion. Good thing, scientists will bring forth further indices for evolution - which creationism simply can't as it is (a) a rhetoric built on denial, not on progress (in discussion or quality of arguments) and (b) it is based on a fixed point - the bible is written, nothing can be changed about that.

Therefore, there can be no advancements on the creationist-side. Therefore, the inevitable win of the theory of evolution is ensured.

The only cause why creationists won't accept defeat is stubbornness. They poke and poke and try to find small loop-holes, which they either didn't understand or grossly misinterpreted.

There is no proof to deism, just faith. That is not science. I will not draw them a picture, because this is getting really nowhere. I am done with this. Yes, I know, in some weeks I will get lured in another pointless discussion of faith vs. science, only to be bored again.

Because, in the end, scientists won't care about creationists - those are noisy flies on a wall to them, nothing more.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
For evolutionists and creationists alike, I would look at the experiment with the Russian Fox experiment starting in the 1950s.

Belyaev wanted to breed Russian foxes that were tame so that he could work with them for their fur. The link above shows the Russian Fox starting as a dark furry fox like animal. He basically bred the ones that were most friendliest to the humans. Within only 8 or 10 generations then he found much to his surprise that the fur started to become mottled - the fox started to look like a sheepdog. There were other dog like traits, in its floppy ears and curly tail.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by templar knight
 


Exactly! That's evolution. Animals passing there genes through breed and adapting to their environments to survive. Also, there is no such thing as an "evolutionists". There are people who understand evolution, and those who do not understand evolution.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
When someone confuses evolution with abiogenesis you know they are to stupid to be worth your time.

Its a shame creationists don't make the smallest amount of effort required to not look like idiots.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by MadMax7


7. If people don’t believe in a God, why do they come up with explanations for existence that are even more preposterous in the belief level. Evolution requires more faith and has less evidence than creation by a higher power.





That's a funny thing to say really. We have multiple branches of scientific endeavor all agreeing and supporting the theme of evolution, we have genetics, we have the fossil record, we have a veritable mountain of evidence that evolution is a process that has been and still is operating on this planet. Yet the fact that you find something beyond your comprehension "preposterous" is quite telling. The scientific process requires no faith. If you would care to provide "evidence" of a "creation by a higher power" feel free to do so.

We as humans have been engaged in a quest to understand life and its origins for hundreds of years, the story is incomplete but we learn more everyday. Your view point is about stunting and retarding(both in a contemporary and historical context) the natural curiosity that humans possess. Our will to find the truth will proceed, and whether your bible says a God made everything or not it will not stop that quest, unfortunately for you and your dogma.

The religiously minded will attack evolution for one simple reason, it contradicts a book, a book written, compiled, edited, printed and espoused by men, a long time ago in a land far away from where you are today.....that's preposterous.

edit on 26-4-2013 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)


It only contradicts the bible if you are a literals and do not understand what is really written from my point of view. Reading it in a language that does not give the right interpretation of what is symbolises kinda screws it up also. If you see the symbolic meaning behind the words and it tells a very interesting story but very different than the washed out understanding you learn in the so called "christian church".

Do you know that Jehovah means "the existing One". In fact the only existing One. Everything that exists both unknown and known to human. But most "Christians" have no clue what nonduality is and still eat the apple of knowledge of right and wrong (the belief of duality and that the ego is separated).

Synchronicity is probably used to evolve the species. Just because it is evolution and is in nature does not mean it is not controlled on some levels.

The seeking of science and spirituality is the same journey of seeking the truth of "what is" to the highest of our ability ignoring hopefully our preconceived ideas of "what is" questing everything. According to reincarnation even souls are evolved to become something more.

And to clarify I do not like faith without questioning since it leads to stagnation and fundamentalism. If Jehovah is real then it can show itself by it's fruits, but if the cup is filled with faith then there will not be any room for the spirit since the space is already occupied by an ego mind who will rather listen to itself than what the spiritual world around you can tell you.

Seek (question and think and philosophy) about knowledge, understanding and wisdom and ye: shall find.
edit on 26-4-2013 by LittleByLittle because: Spellchecking



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
the word LIFE is sort of relative you cant really define it but i seen a program where they created LIFE by electrically stimulating amino acid so that answers your question about creating LIFE from nothing but i do believe in evolution look at the human body we have evolved why do you think we have organs that we don't use or need anymore



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I think the terminology and a lack of defined terms causes misunderstandings in these conversations.

There is an observable fact called evolution. (change over time in a population or individual organism)
There is a scientific theory formally called the modern synthesis and informally called evolution. (a collection of individual theories across many different fields of science which serves as the current scientific consensus for the explanation of the mechanisms involved in evolution)

Clearly the two versions of evolution are related but not interchangeable, yet they commonly go by the same exact name. In these kinds of discussion you'll often hear people say things like "evolution is not a fact, it's just a theory" as well as "evolution is a fact, it's not just a theory." These kinds of statements are not mutually exclusive when the terminology is ambiguous.

Until you make an effort to ensure both sides of the conversation are talking about the exact same thing, chances are, at least for this subject, both sides are explicitly not talking about the same exact thing.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by PharaohSmiff
the word LIFE is sort of relative you cant really define it but i seen a program where they created LIFE by electrically stimulating amino acid so that answers your question about creating LIFE from nothing but i do believe in evolution look at the human body we have evolved why do you think we have organs that we don't use or need anymore
Are you talking about the Miller experiments? They created amino acids by electrically stimulating 3 gases.

And what organs do we have that we don't need? I know of several organs that can be removed without death: tonsils, uterus, 1 of your 2 kidneys, spleen, appendix. It's pure conjecture to claim we don't need these organs simply because we can survive after they are removed... one is essential for reproduction and the others play a role in our immune system that, if removed, will be naturally compensated for by the remaining relevant organs.





top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join