I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb



Do Pomskies count?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Do Pomskies count?

DId it change from a dog to something entirely new? No. It went from a dog to, ta-da, a dog. Like a said evolution leads to speciation, but not as evolutionist claim it does. Dogs always give rise to dogs it might be a different species of dog, but always still a dog. Frogs give rise to frogs this is what we observe in nature it is never anything else.

ServantOfTheLamb

helldiver

ServantOfTheLamb

helldiver
Can i just ask what the creation/religion stand is on the replenishing of species? If it is accepted that species can become extinct then what maintains speciation?

Surely it's logical to demand empirical evidence of this to counter evolution? Does a giant hand reach down (or up) and gently place a new species of frog (for example) on a palm frond (cunningly placed there previously by said deity). Would we perhaps hear "shoo!!, go forth and multiply (with your counterpart of the opposite sex cunningly placed in the adjacent palm tree, and dont worry about a genetic bottleneck) but don't become extinct! You're a nightmare to replace, the colour schemes alone are a nightmare!".

To summarise, what keeps the biosphere so speciose?

When discussing whether evolution is fact or fiction it is important to define evolution. The only type of evolution not backed up by a shred of evidence is Macro-evolution. So my answer would be frogs can give rise to new species of frogs, but there are certain genetic barriers animals can never cross. A truly vertical mutation has never been observed. SO Frogs make frogs(of different species), dogs make dogs, but lizards dont make birds and fish dont make mammals.

So what creates new "macro formed" species then?

I'd argue that micro and macro evolution are the same thing and that evidence of both have already been provided in this thread.

So what keeps the biosphere so speciose?

edit on 16-11-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)

Show me a change of kinds and I will believe there are macro-formed species. For example show me a dog give rise to an entirely new type of animal that has the ability to reproduce. I just told you what keeps the biosphere so species-rich. Frogs can give rise to different species of frogs, and dogs give rise to different species of dogs and ect...that would account for various types of species of the same kind

Various posters have provided evidence.
Here:
www.talkorigins.org...
and here:
www.talkorigins.org...

Now please tell us what, in your opinion, creates new forms and when? Going by your logic they've either all been here since the start or they are dropped in further down the timeline?

reply to post by helldiver


I have read that article numerous times. Everything it claims as proof is speculation. For example the very first thing you sent me to, reptiles to birds. Then it goes on to say there are morphological fossil records with no gaps. They then show you four bones of similar anatomy, but of four different animals. This does not prove that these animals evolved from one another or even that they had a common ancestor that has to be taken on faith.

Plants and animals were originally created with large gene pools within created kinds. A large gene pool gives a created kind the genetic potential (the potential to produce a variety of types within a kind) to adapt to a variety of ecosystems and ensure the survival of that kind of organism through natural selection. Genetic potential can best be understood by observing the large number of dog breeds. There are many shapes, sizes, and colors of dogs, illustrating the tremendous genetic potential in this kind of animal. Other kinds of plants and animals have similar potential to produce variety within a created kind. Natural selection can only operate on the genetic material already present in a population of organisms. It cannot create new genetic information and subsequently change one kind of organism into another.

SuperFrog
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

Some people work better with pictures, so here we go...

This little video here shows why 99.9% of life does not exists any more.

BBC TV had very good documentary about human life origin, they went into details to show evolution. I will try to find it. It was really worth watching...

Thanks for that superfrog.

Though I still think you may have gotten the wrong idea, regarding the post you originally responded to.

reply to post by SuperFrog

ps.

I do appreciate your attempt at educating such a poor ignorant Philistine, SuperFrog. Though in an effort to illustrate a certain point, I'll paste the original reply that your appraisal seems based on with some explanation. To give some context and clarity.

If you see the first paragraph as a (very poor, as it turns out), attempt at sarcasm, a caricature of the more outlandish points creationists use against the theory of evolution.....Then if you just see the remaining in the opposite context, the drift might come to you. I certainly lament not having the old emoticons....

Yes, but can any of you narrow minded atheists show me a creature that is exactly half one species and half another? Surely there should be Crocoducks, Humanzee and Minotaur like creatures running around everywhere lol? Can you show me speciation.....oh and by lunchtime too, thanks, got other thing's I'd like to do in the afternoon. If Ray Comfort's other academic masterpiece, aka the scientific theory of "the banana proves god" doesn't sway you, I think you might be a lost cause.....lol

It won't matter even if creationists are shown more obvious transitional fossils, they'll just put a gap either side of it and claim god made them that way..... lol.

Surely, every fossil is a transitional fossil? I really do wonder what impression creationists get, when they look at the progression in the homonid fossil record? An imaginary sky fairy just created them/gave the order for them to spontaneously generate *poof* with features that go steadily from archaic to modern human, just because....it sounds so logical (lol)? Is there evidence of this sky fairy, does the fossil record really support his brand of spontaneous generation, or does it indicate something else...?

kyviecaldges
Students are not taught logic and reason.
They are not taught how to think; however, they are taught what to think.

it's dressed up as "outcome based education".

I'd agree with that to a certain extent. At least in public schools over the past decade with the implementation of "no child left behind" and common core curriculum but in secondary school that really isn't the case. Even less so in grad school. You're not going to get very far with a thesis if you don't grasp the concept of critical thinking and you're definitely not going to successfully defend a dissertation. I was taught HOW to think, not what to think.

I made a recent thread covering the same subject and in a similar tone.

I listened to the same supposedly 'credible' evidence, but no one could account for two mysteries that seem to baffle even the most learned of scholars concerning Darwinian Evolution.
All I received in response are a bunch of correlations.
Correlation is not causation.

One instance is corollary, 2 may be coincidence, but when you've got dozens of instances supporting the theory it goes a little beyond 'correlation is not causation' meme. I'm not going to bother repeating everything from your other thread, you've linked it and the posts are there.

I requested to have described to me-
1) Through the template of Darwinian Evolution, use facts to explain the missing link in human evolution, which is the jump in brain mass that is responsible for the ultimate survival of homo sapiens.

Ironic how you call out other posters for logical fallacies, straw man arguments and ad hominems yet you, purposely or not, ask a question in a fashion that will skew an answer towards your preconceived notion by setting the parameters to suit your purpose. You have your own definition of "missing link" as well which is rather interesting as you demand others utilize science to describe something that is reinterpreted for your own needs. See, Darwin is simply point A, the beginings of what we currently know. Evolutionary theory is no more singularly beholden to Darwin than it is Gould. Origin of Species was a good jumping off point but we've learned a hell of a lot in the past 154 years since it was originally published. So much for being the open minded skeptic...

www.sciencemag.org... shortFive point mutations in a particular β-lactamase allele jointly increase bacterial resistance to a clinically important antibiotic by a factor of ∼100,000. In principle, evolution to this high-resistance β-lactamase might follow any of the 120 mutational trajectories linking these alleles. However, we demonstrate that 102 trajectories are inaccessible to Darwinian selection and that many of the remaining trajectories have negligible probabilities of realization, because four of these five mutations fail to increase drug resistance in some combinations. Pervasive biophysical pleiotropy within the β-lactamase seems to be responsible, and because such pleiotropy appears to be a general property of missense mutations, we conclude that much protein evolution will be similarly constrained. This implies that the protein tape of life may be largely reproducible and even predictable.

www.theguardian.com...

There is an observable change in the brains of early hominids from the Australopithecines on to us. As far back as 3 million YA we can see from endocranial casts the emergence of Broca's area in Australopithecus and that as we move on to H. erectus that this area gets larger,as does the rest of the brain. Broca's area is associated with speech and I think we can both agree that without proper communication then cooperation becomes difficult. Between Australopithecus and H. Erectus we saw a doubling of cranial capacity approximately 2 million YA. And again we see a slight increase between Erectus and Neanderthal. It may not be as cut and dry as you like but there were specific environments and personal changes going on that, in my opinion, show a direct link towards increasing cranial capacity from 450 cc to 1200 cc over a period of 2 million years.

2) Explain to me how a path or direction of life can be charted when the very driving force behind evolution is random mutation. Someone posted a video explaining the common ancestor theory by a supposed fusion of chromosomes at a very specific site of sequenced human DNA. But what these people watching the video do not understand is that this supposed fusion is the result of a mutation, and mutations are totally unexplainable.

Essentially this supposed scientists was saying "It looks like it was fused, therefore it was fused."
I can not believe a supposed scientist would utter such nonsense.

While a forward linear direction is not directly possible to chart(yes I'm aware that the abstract I linked above talks about being able to possibly chart certain proteins), we can use the information we currently have to look backwards to chart the past pretty accurately. We can, with a fair amount of certainty, peek into prehistory by charting DNA and the mutations we see from one generation to the next. By going backwards patterns begin to emerge that do give us direct information on what the rate of mutation was and we can reliably show where and when those changes took place. As sequencing techniques improve we may be able to more accurately begin to predict future changes as well. I think where you are going completely wrong is by taking what the media and average person claims regarding evolution to be the same position as that of Anthropologists and Evolutionary Biologists. Perhaps I'm making a glaring assumption but ill continue anyway. While I personally believe very strongly that evolution is in fact a verifiable phenomena, nobody that actually works in those fields( let's leave Dawkins out of this for now because I don't want to confuse militant atheism with the entirety of the scientific community) is going to tell you that everything we understand currently is a guaranteed 100% fact. My general response is that, this is what we currently understand to the best of our knowledge based on the most recent data available. This is the biggest difference I see between science and the fundamental religious folks who refuse to entertain the notion of anything outside the bible. For those who find inspiration from the bible their views are, for the most part, unchanging because the refuse to accept the bible is an affront to god whereas in science we realize that as finite humans our understanding of things can change as we learn more. Additionally we are often encouraged to seek any and all answers and in fact an incorrect hypothesis proven such can often show us why and where we went wrong as well as showing us where to look for the correct answer. More often than not in science the wrong question will lead us to the right answer. Believe it or not there is a great deal of debate and a lot less consensus than most people seem to realize. I can only give my professional opinion. It give a very different perspective when your holding a Neanderthal scapula and taking measurements of attachment points to see how large the muscle was compared to sitting in a high school biology class bring taught rote.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

I'm not the best person to explain this. But I do know someone who can do it quite well. I asked them to drop in for a word, so we'll see how it goes. But your assertion that there is no evidence for evolution is dead wrong. It sounds to me as though you believe that millions of people have lied to us about decades worth of discoveries and research. And yet, for such evidently blatant deception, you don't have a better story to give us?

Somehow, that doesn't quite make sense. But since I don't have the educational background to sufficiently argue the case, I'll wait and see if this other person comes along to explain things. Maybe you'll understand then.

edit on 16-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Not for lack of effort but they won't. This was a reply to them in another thread-

peter vlar

kyviecaldges
reply to post by peter vlar

 

I am not going to respond to this because you are totally derailing the thread by posting long rambling posts that parse individual paragraphs and sentences.
This is a great way to throw off a thread- so I ask you ONE question.

No offence, but the only thing it appears I'm derailing is your script. Anytime I bring up something that goes off script you malign me or refuse to remotely address it. That's your prerogative but I'm not attempting to derail anything. If you're not interested in an open discussion then that's your burden not mine. Anyway, I'll bit on your one question...

The same question that I just proposed.

Explain the unexplained exponential evolution toward greater brain mass, greatly increasing cellular complexity and exponentially increasing intelligence, thus making us the creatures that we are today.
Explain the missing link.

you also quoted in a reply to another poster-

Homo Erectus did NOT have a comparable brain size to modern humans. Homo Erectus brain size averages 900 cubic centimeters (cc.) The human/Cromagnon brain averages 1,350 cc. Neanderthal brain averaged slightly larger in the 1,400cc range. Modern Humans/Homo Sapiens/Cromagnon encountered and had successful 'relationships' with Neanderthal, such that fertile offspring resulted. This is why EVERYONE on the planet, with small exception of some Subsaharan Africans that never left Africa, have Neanderthal DNA at roughly 3%. Neanderthals had a brain mass of 1,400 cc. While you could argue that an elephant has a bigger brain than a human, that is a false analogy.
If you buy into this theory of evolution then the LIKE neanderthal, so much like us that we still have 3% of their DNA in our systems, give or take, on a good day, then it stands to reason that they were THAT much more intelligent than we are today.
It sure would take a really strong person with pythagoran-like math skills to build the pyramids, or the many megalithic world sites that are ALL built in perfect astronomical alignments.

you seem to be forgetting that cranial capacity has a direct correlation to body size. H. Erectus for example with their average of 1100 cc was a smaller creature than MH or Neanderthal. Neanderthal while having a cranial capacity of anywhere from 1200-1600 cc had a larger mass, particularly in regards to lean muscle than AMH w/ their average of 1350 cc and slighter frame. So yes, increased nutrient intake from cooked food did play a huge part in the increasing size of early hominid brains. This is shown by the types of tools, remnants of controlled fires and tool marks on animal bones(or in the case of some Iberian Neanderthals each other) that coincide with these leaps in brain power. There is also the changing social structure to consider. With the ability to cook meat there was a marked division of labor and beginnings of social hierarchy that also coincides with this leap in brain size. Parity is everything though and as I already stated, the size of a hominid brain is going to have a direct correlation to its body mass. this is known from endocranial casts and measurement of the long bones as well as muscle point attachment scars that tell us how strong an individual was and how large their muscles were. As for whether Neanderthal were more intelligent than we are today, maybe. they were at least as smart as we were, had language and religion, produced art and had culture. There is however no evidence of higher math or any permanent structures period let alone megaliths built by Neanderthal. It would be really amazing if that turned out to be so, but as yet there is nothing to support that hypothesis. I hadn't seen the Discover article previously regarding diminishing cranial capacity. It's an intriguing postulation for sure. However decreasing mass doesn't necessarily mean decreasing intelligence. I can't say one way or the other without doing further research. Thanks for the link.

Because without it. Your theory doesn't fly.
It is based upon an idea that is completely random and its the randomness that is actually responsible for continued survival. Random cannot be understood, especially when the goal is to create the highest number of random possibilities for continued survival.

randomness doesn't need to be understood to see that it works. My child doesn't understand the digestive process but he certainly grasps the cause and effect that ingesting food will eventually lead to excretion of solid waste. That randomness that perplexes you comes from a variety of stimuli from various environmental factors including localized environment such as heat or cold, available food sources, competition, types of predators, environmental catastrophes can drastically reduce populations which has profound effects on the gene pool. You seem to be under the impression that the entire process is irreducibly complex and it isn't so.

Please stop derailing my thread and stick to the topic in readable posts that make this worth my time.

edit on 14/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.

by all means, don't let me distract you with reasonable facts that your closed mind will not entertain.

ServantOfTheLamb

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Do Pomskies count?

DId it change from a dog to something entirely new? No. It went from a dog to, ta-da, a dog. Like a said evolution leads to speciation, but not as evolutionist claim it does. Dogs always give rise to dogs it might be a different species of dog, but always still a dog. Frogs give rise to frogs this is what we observe in nature it is never anything else.

So what happens after 2 million or so years? We see the horse and donkey at the very edge of two species, when we breed them we get sterile mules. Give it time and they will be two totally separate species that can 't even make mules.

If we go back 400 million years ago life was knocked back to very simple life forms during snowball earth. What you see today came from the evolution after that point. That is why all animals are similar and share a good amount of DNA. I don't think dogs were running around when dinos walked the earth, so dogs only produce dogs until they are no longer dogs....

reply to post by rickymouse

I believe in Evolution but not as it is taught. I believe something is steering it just like we have steered bacteria and other microbes to evolve faster. Something evolved humans, it wasn't random evolution. Something steered us down the path we are going.

So then, I think that the two theories, evolution and creationism need to be combined.

First, let me say that I appreciate the fact that you haven't tried to couch your belief in creationism as "intelligent design".

Second, I have to ask -- what is the evidence that "something evolved humans"? Does that evidence suggest that only human origins have been manipulated, or are you also suggesting that all life underwent similar manipulation?

Evolution, simply defined, is a shift in allele frequency within a given population over time. Please note that the definition of evolution doesn't include the source of that change in population genetics.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

and... what do these videos have to do with the clip I posted?

The videos that Vasa Croe posted and the video you posted in your OP were produced by the same person.

actually no, a video on youtube has not has not shattered my confidence of something I have been suspicious of for quite some time. My brow was raised over 2 decades ago with the debate over the missing link and our lack of evidence. Science can discover worlds orbiting other stars, some of which even have atmospheres, but they can not provide rock solid evidence to convince me that the way I was raised (believing in God and celebrating Christmas) is false or a misconception or untrue.

Two questions. One, do you understand that the whole concept of a missing link is a fallacy? If the lack of a missing link is, in your opinion, evidence against evolution, it suggests that you may not be as familiar with evolution as you think. Two, do you understand that it's not up to evolution to disprove anything you've been taught, it's up to those making the claims to provide evidence? Accepting evolution as the observable reality that it is doesn't stop one from believing in God or celebrating Christmas.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

what's good for the goose is good for the gander... you obviously missed the Dakwins and Darwin quotes in the clip too.

Examples of quote mining. Have you investigated the sources of those quotes to make sure that they're being taken in their proper context or are you just accepting that the person who produced the video was ethical enough to do so himself?

it doesn't matter if you have watched it or not, but I can tell you this... over that past year I have even attended seminars and discussions on the matter and have received both the atheistic points and the theistic point of the argument. One thing that is obviously clear in my journeys is that the theistic group are alot more well mannered and are basically happier and more successful individuals. It is just a little fact I have noticed.

Evolution and theism aren't always, or even usually, mutually exclusive. The only time they are would be when people insist on a literal interpretation of a creation story.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

I have investigated... and this has to do with what? let me help you here, it has to do with character assassination... the typical non engaging tactic and avoidance of the evolutionist.

How is it character assassination when you're being provided with evidence that the person who produced your video has engaged in dishonest practices when producing his videos? Wouldn't it have been more honest of him to provide as much of the raw interview footage as possible, so we could see and hear for ourselves what the interviewees were actually being asked and how they replied in context?

what's your point again then? would you like to discuss the questions being posed in the video I posted? if not then please move along I do not appreciate you derailing my thread.

I think one of the reasons people aren't providing refutations of the video you posted in your OP is because this video has already been posted and discussed ad nauseum in the O&C forum several times since it became available on Youtube. Perhaps you should look to one of those threads for discussion instead of creating a new one?

reply to post by kyviecaldges

Your questions suggest that your understanding of evolution is lacking.

1) Through the template of Darwinian Evolution, use facts to explain the missing link in human evolution, which is the jump in brain mass that is responsible for the ultimate survival of homo sapiens.

"Darwinian Evolution" hasn't been the model for the theory of evolution for over a century now. Even by the end of the 1800's, people understood that Mendel's work in genetics (or something similar) would have to be incorporated. Over time, evolution has come to incorporate cytology, systematics, botany, morphology, ecology, and paleontology as well. It's hardly what Darwin outlined in his work a century and a half ago. So asking to interpret any facts "through the template of Darwinian Evolution" is an inherently flawed question. Further, the whole concept of a missing link is a fallacy.

2) Explain to me how a path or direction of life can be charted when the very driving force behind evolution is random mutation. Someone posted a video explaining the common ancestor theory by a supposed fusion of chromosomes at a very specific site of sequenced human DNA. But what these people watching the video do not understand is that this supposed fusion is the result of a mutation, and mutations are totally unexplainable.

The driving force behind evolution is natural selection acting on mutations. It's not random, it's undirected. And how, precisely, are mutations "totally unexplainable"? They are errors in transcription. Organic reactions, like the ones that replicate DNA, are typically complex and it's easy to get reaction products other than the ones which are desired. It's observable chemistry, not magic and certainly not "totally unexplainable".

reply to post by kyviecaldges

It requires belief that a force exists that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics, thus creating expanding complexity, which is inherently contradictory to this law of physics.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states nothing that is contradictory to evolution. Simply put, it states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The Earth and the biological systems within it are not closed systems, therefore the 2nd law doesn't even apply to your argument.

reply to post by kyviecaldges

We are in an isolated system on this very planet.

Really? So there's no energy being transferred to our planet from the sun?

reply to post by kyviecaldges

Where is this life then that is either entering or exiting our atmosphere.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics makes no statements about life. Only matter and energy. Can you provide an example of an equation describing the entropy of a closed system that has an explicit variable for "life"?

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

None of these are examples of a transition between kinds, or Macro-evolution.

Define "kind" in an objective scientific context.

reply to post by peter vlar


This is your forte, not mine. Hence my invitation. I can understand if you're reluctant to engage, given the opposition. Thanks for stopping by.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

My brow was raised over 2 decades ago with the debate over the missing link and our lack of evidence.

The missing link?!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You don't understand evolution, chum. You don't know the first blessed thing about it.

Yes, Ray Comfort is just about your speed.