Evolution questions...

[DougyDanger]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: DougyDanger

They are viruses, technically not a living organism. Even still they are just DNA that keeps changing as they replicate. With each new host a new strain is developed. Over time these manifest themselves differenty, affecting different organs and systems. However, no matter how they change they are still a virus. Protein capsule with a soft chewey DNA middle.

heh, based on your definition then, yeah I guess evolution isn't possible. No matter how much you change a vertebrate, it's still a vertebrate. I mean, a rat and a human are pretty much the same thing, they're just different size sacks of skin and bones.

Virus-simple protein sheath, DNA inside. VERY Simple. No added complexity as they change. Same song, different key.

Rat and Human, VERY different. And if you take evolution's claim its not Rat-Human, but rather Aemeba-Human.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: jaydee

The art of breeding = "micro-evolution."

People have known for centuries that you can breed animals to emphasize certain traits. It is very old news.

But breeders have found that there are limits to breeding. People have been breeding horses, dogs, sheep, cattle, etc since the dawn of human civilization, but no one has even been able to breed horses into becoming something that is not a horse, or breeding dogs to become something that is not a dog, etc.

There is no evidence for macro-evolution.

Ditto

well, no one has ever done this for even a million years (breeding), and the earth is 4.5 billion years old I think. a billion is a thousand million, to do this experiment correctly would take a very long time.

Exactly. Because the experiment would take millions of years, you can't prove it.

So run tests on certain aspects written in the bible. Oh and find out where the bible came from, because I was wondering who the author(s) was.

 

[0roo0roo]

what never fails is the ability of creationists to use pseudo science and plain dishonesty in their arguements. you can see this same dishonesty in other conspiracy groups, such as those that claim the US never went to the moon. many of their claims sound reasonable at first glance even, but in the end, its just a lie. sand bag people with a ton of lies with information a normal person doesn't have the knowledge to verify let alone refute and you sound somewhat reasonable.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: DougyDanger


1) True to an extent. Not long ago the Earth was said to be almost as old as the universe now is though to be. When the univers is getting younger the age of the earth needed to be looked at again. You can't have a 10billion year old ear in a 14billion year old universe.

What the f*ck? Who said anything about the earth being 10 bil years old?? Go look it up in encarta online, it's ~4 billion. Oh wait, Encarta is wrong too huh? Why do you keeping pulling numbers out of your ass??

2) We are taught evolution has billions of years, but that is not so. The millions refers to the 'viable' portion of the universe's age, not its actual age. So even if the universe were 14billion years old, evolution would only have millions as it needs a perfect environment. One that would take much of that 14 billion years of time to form and then would only be in such a state for a short portion of its life. Take pro athletes. They live say, 70 years. Do they have that long to win a championship? Not really. Only during maybe 20 years of that time are they able to persue that goal.

uhh, who said the viable age for the universe is only a couple million years? You?

It does take a couple billion years to generate enough heavy elements, but even if you take an exceptionally long time to make those elements at 5 billion years, of the short estimate of the universe's existence at 10 billion years, that still gives enough time for evolution to work.

More about viruses since you seem to lump them in with animals. Ebola could have been around long before 1950. There are parts of Africa we still have not found. Who knows what viruses are lurking there waiting to be found. For all we know ebola could have been killing people thousands of years ago. Africa isn't exacly known for being the fastest to get news to the press if you know what I mean. But still....a virus is a virus is a virus. Your point?

I'll just say this; I'd rather have the cold virus than ebola. Just like how I'd rather swim in a lake full of guppies instead of an ocean surrounded by sharks.

 

[rahvin]

Wow those seeking to deny valid scientific research because their beliefs are founded on shakey ground are out in force.

Johnny, the best origins FAQ's website was already posted. In a little under an hour of reading the main FAQ's you should be able to gain a mild grasp on the principles of evolution. A couple of key points Ape's and Man share a common ancestor, man did NOT evolve from the great apes. We are simply different branches of the same tree. Focus on verifiable/reproducable and falsifiable evidence. Real science must be able to be proved wrong and it must be able to be verified (through theories that are verified via biological or archelogical evidence). The falsifiable point is the one that is most often ignored. For example, any theory that presupposes the existience of an all powerfull being can not be falsified and is NOT science.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: DougyDanger

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: DougyDanger


Also, according to recent research into dark matter they came upon a bit of a new (old) discovery. The universe is accelerating (decelerating...I don't remember). Point is this shows that the universe is much younger than previously thought. Billions and Billions of years for life to evolve gets wittled down to millions when you take other factors into account: formation of the planets and them being the proper age to support life being the biggest.

Food for thought.

That statement is fallacious on a couple levels.

1) The methodology used to determine the age of the universe is different from that used the determine the age of the earth. So the results are independent.

2) The uncertainty for the age of the universe right now is about 3-5 billion years. It's pretty substantial, but it's not the "billions to millions" orders of magnitude you make it out to be.

1) True to an extent. Not long ago the Earth was said to be almost as old as the universe now is though to be. When the univers is getting younger the age of the earth needed to be looked at again. You can't have a 10billion year old ear in a 14billion year old universe.

2) We are taught evolution has billions of years, but that is not so. The millions refers to the 'viable' portion of the universe's age, not its actual age. So even if the universe were 14billion years old, evolution would only have millions as it needs a perfect environment. One that would take much of that 14 billion years of time to form and then would only be in such a state for a short portion of its life. Take pro athletes. They live say, 70 years. Do they have that long to win a championship? Not really. Only during maybe 20 years of that time are they able to persue that goal.


More about viruses since you seem to lump them in with animals. Ebola could have been around long before 1950. There are parts of Africa we still have not found. Who knows what viruses are lurking there waiting to be found. For all we know ebola could have been killing people thousands of years ago. Africa isn't exacly known for being the fastest to get news to the press if you know what I mean. But still....a virus is a virus is a virus. Your point?

To imply that the astrophysicists somehow conspired with the biologists to find red-shift which placed a firmer age on the universe is a bit fecious don't you think?

The earth formed at approximately 4.x billion years ago. Roughly 1 billion years after formation the first life as we recognize it is believed to have occured. Life did not proceed beyond individual primative cells for roughly 1 billion more years. The first animals didn't set foot on land until just under a billion years ago. The time span during which life evolved to what we know is roughly 3 billion years. That is 3000 million years. That seems like a pretty long time to me considering I will be lucky to live 100 years and see 3 generations of my progeny.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
what never fails is the ability of creationists to use pseudo science and plain dishonesty in their arguements. you can see this same dishonesty in other conspiracy groups, such as those that claim the US never went to the moon. many of their claims sound reasonable at first glance even, but in the end, its just a lie. sand bag people with a ton of lies with information a normal person doesn't have the knowledge to verify let alone refute and you sound somewhat reasonable.

proof that the US did not go to the moon

 

[DougyDanger]

So run tests on certain aspects written in the bible. Oh and find out where the bible came from, because I was wondering who the author(s) was.

Which aspects? The Bible has been tested by secular science for years. One recent study evaluated the likelyhood of a global flood and the Ark. They took the Bible at face value and looked for evidence of this in the world. Essentially the Bible teaches that there was no rain before the flood, but rather the earth was watered by springs. It also suggests that there was a layer of water vapor surrounding the earth. We know today that such conditions would greatly enhance life expectancy (no harmfull radiation thanks to the water vapor sheilding us and increased air pressure aka a giant hyperbolic chamber, and no winters). These conditions would also allow life on the earths poles. We find fossilized remains of warm weather animals in these poles.

Now a flood. Could this different earth flood? They hypothosised that a crack in the earths crust above this subterranian water layer would reach the earth surface in no time and then proceded to spread around the entire globe in seconds. We see just such a 'seam' in the earths crust. The water woudl then shoot out of this layer as the crust above came pressing down. It would spray over 200miles into the air and come down like rain. The resulting climate changes would put an end to the water vapor layer and there would be plenty of water to flood the surface. The earths crust could then from mountains in seconds. Thats how we find oceanic fossiles on mountain tops.

Now could an ark survive? A Navy sponsored research lab (U of Mich?) built a scalled replica. They found that it would have been EXTREMELY stable in water. To get it to capsize would require it to go almost completely verticle. They could not do this even under simulated waves of hundreds of feet. Their conlusion...the arks desing was very sound.

This was all done by secular scientists. Then there is also the issue of people finding the Ark in Turkey. Photos exist as well as samples of the wood taken by Monks who used to live on the mountain. Why is it not more documented? Turkey won't let people in there and when people do get in the summit is covered by ice for years at a time. All this was shown on a discovery channel program any of you can buy and evaluate on your own.

As for the Bible, it is also a great archeaology source. It used to be scoffed at because so many people and places mentioned were not known. Then one by one these were found. Now even Newsweek calls the Bible an accurate historical document. As for its authors. 40+ guys (I think...) over thousands of years, most never reading or knowing the others. Put it all together and its consistent in theme and content. Most say its full of contradictions. I hear this all the time and then respond, Show me 10. No one has. As for its accuracy over time. We have translations today. If you look at the original Greek or Hebrew you find that the copies we have are remarkably accurate. The NT alone has some 23,000 extant manuscripts. Put all these side by side and you get~150 words that differ. Most of these are articles and not one alters the meaning or content in any way. This is accuracy that not even secular historical works can rival (the closest counterpart is Homer's works that have thousands of discrepancies among much fewer extant copies). For a good read, try "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". It was written by a lawyer who set out to disprove the Bible.

There are some facts. I don't want to get into a long debate on this as most of the time it involves people who just like to argue/debate...like myself 😉 If anyone is interested in a serious discussion or is otherwise curious, PM me.

 

[Drekce]

If a person claims to be a TRUE Christian than they CANNOT believe in evolution. The first words of the Bible: In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. If a Christian cannot have faith in the first sentence in the Bible, then he/she is not a true believer in Jesus.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Where's the missing link between her and Adam and Eve? Why didn't Eve give birth to her?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Drekce
If a person claims to be a TRUE Christian than they CANNOT believe in evolution. The first words of the Bible: In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. If a Christian cannot have faith in the first sentence in the Bible, then he/she is not a true believer in Jesus.

If a Christian cannot have faith in the first sentence in the Bible, then he/she is not a BIBLE WORSHIPPER.

 

[exp]

I empathize with you, johnnytightlips. Almost my entire family used to be like your friend...it took me nearly a decade to convince them of the error of their ways, and even now a few resist. If you really want to change her mind you need to be willing to keep it at it for a while.

Remind her of the countless other scientific theories and concepts that Christian institutions have opposed in the past. The Christian position on each one eventually came around to reality, and the Church survived intact (a far cry from the apocalyptic doom and gloom its leaders predicted beforehand)...there's no reason for evolution to be any different. Many scientists accept evolution and yet are still devout Christians...there is no contradiction between the two unless you insist on interpreting the Bible as 100% infallible, in which case you have bigger problems to deal with than just evolution.

1. What is the Catholic church's stance on evolution?

After a long period of opposition the Catholic Church has come to accept evolution. The Pope himself issued the statement to that effect.

2. What is a good site explaining evolution? She said "well why don't apes give birth to humans", so obviously she doesn't understand the concept too well.

As BDawg mentioned, Talk Origins is the finest educational site covering evolution. The information there has mostly been culled from Usenet discussions by scientists.

3. Where are all the "missing-links"... Neanderthals and the like?

Follow the link. I will tell you that the "missing link" is a dangerous topic to fixate on. Evolution is a vast field...it's unfortunate that the lay public places such an inappropriate emphasis on the buzzword "missing link". It really is not important in the grand scheme of things. Focus on mutation and speciation, both of which have been directly observed. Everything else about evolution follows quite logically from those two concepts.

what never fails is the ability of creationists to use pseudo science and plain dishonesty in their arguements. you can see this same dishonesty in other conspiracy groups, such as those that claim the US never went to the moon. many of their claims sound reasonable at first glance even, but in the end, its just a lie. sand bag people with a ton of lies with information a normal person doesn't have the knowledge to verify let alone refute and you sound somewhat reasonable.

Yes, it's very sad. I've found that there are two types of creationists:

The Upper Echelon consists of those who derive their power from the unwavering obedience of the masses. Without dogma, they would have no followers. They are the ones who initiate the lies and misinformation so typical of the creationist position. Members of this ruling class know very well that they are deceiving the less educated in their congregation, but according to their twisted internal logic the ends justify the means. This class of creationist knows their position is categorically wrong but does not care. They are set in their ways and cannot be changed.

The Lower Echelon is by far the largest part of the creationist camp. It consists of the millions of people who do not have an adequate background in the biological sciences. That, combined with their willingness to swallow whatever their spiritual leaders tell them without question ("That's what true faith is about," they think. "No evidence needed, right?") leads them to turn off their brains and ignore reality. They mindlessly parrot what their religious associates tell them, in the process creating a chain of deception that reminds me of nothing so much as a bad chain letter. Luckily there are some among this group who come to see the error of their ways.

In the past I used to participate in these threads in the hope of educating creationists who had been duped by their peers or superiors in the church, and I did meet some success. If there are any creationists out there who are seriously interested in evolution first visit Talk Origins. If that does not answer your questions, or if you want clarification please feel free to PM me. I would be happy to discuss your concerns in a flame-free environment.

 

[Pastore]

So this thread has been thumping for a while now, and guess what, nothing has been proven either way! WoooHooo, I couldn't see this coming!

 

[jamerdean]

3. Religious zealots who refuse to belive cold hard facts because some book tells them not to.[/quote]

That is a steriotype. I am a "religious zealot" and a biologist. (yes it seems to be an oxymoron) You can not dissmiss cold hard facts, but you can not dissmiss faith and belief that has been proven over and over. I am a person that believes tha G*D uses adaptation to allow the betterment of a species. I do not believe that we evolved from pond scum. I have done extensive research on this just to see what it's all about. Most people believe that darwin and his ideas started all of this and that he was an athiest with no belief in G*D. This was untrue. Darwin was a devout Christian who went to a religious seminary for his graduate work. a contemporary named spencer is the one who decided to pervert and publish much of darwin's work.

anyway, i just hate people for being ignorant and not doing anything about it. thanks for letting me rant a little.

 

[Alistar7]

A question for those that claim macro-evolution has never been shown. I say the whale we know today was once a four legged land walking beast, roughly the same size as a large present day dog. You disagree? Then tell me why a whale has a pelvic bone to this day, yes it has become much smaller over the MILLIONS of years but still very present and visible. However it is no longer attached to anything and seems to be disappearing over time. Maybe you should look up what the purpose of a pelvic bone is and ask yourself why a creature that lives in WATER would need or use one. Feel free to educate me and explain why the whale has one and why it has been getting smaller over millions of years.


Here is my question about Noah and his ark, how did he travel all around the world to collect all these specimens? How did he manage to travel to every island, every continent? If there is no evolution he must have saved two of everything still in existence or extinct since then, that was an amazing feat. What did he feed them, especially the carnivores? What about the sheer mass of the animals being enclosed in an ark the dimensions of which are given specifically in the bible?


Faith and belief cannot be proven, lol, that's why you have to have FAITH AND BELIEVE, not KNOW WITH CERTAINTY.

Anyone who wants to know the CERTAINTY of ET life just look up the Drake equasion, bear in mind his calculations were based on the number of known stars circa the early 60's.

The Catholic Church also controlled most if not all science in the western world until only a few hundred years ago, priests were their "scientists" Top notch research, you just had to start on the premise that EVERYTHING in the Bible is 100% accurate, any research that might lead to disproving or conflicting was not even pursued, if something was "found" to be in direct conflict with god's word then it was determined to be false or impossible. This is why Galileo spent the rest of his life in house arrest labeled as a heretic, for daring to say the Earth was not the center of the universe, that we in fact rotated around the sun and not vice versa. However the Roman Catholic Church did retract that label, admit their mistake and apologize, and it only took them until 1981, lmao.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: johnnytightlips
I don't want this to turn into a flame war. I was talking to my friend after class (we watched a movie discussing some aspects of evolution) and she goes "I don't believe in that evolution sh!t"... she's a devout Catholic so I'm sure her upbringing was evolution is devil talk, etc.

My questions were
1. What is the Catholic church's stance on evolution?
2. What is a good site explaining evolution? She said "well why don't apes give birth to humans", so obviously she doesn't understand the concept too well.
3. Where are all the "missing-links"... Neanderthals and the like?

Catholics believe in Evolution.

 

[thraashman]

Ok. I say just this to those who don't believe for religious reasons. The main person given responsibility for the theory of evolution is Darwin. The man was college trained to be a priest. He was more religious than probably anyone you'll ever know, and he came up with this. Why do you have a problem with it.

And dougy, I wouldn't call a virus "very simple" even if they are just protein and DNA, they aren't exactly simple. And I don't know where your friend got the math for this evolution being not mathematically possible, I remember reading of an experiment that showed that evolution should, based on mathematical probabilities, take about 3.5 billion years from a planet's beginning to a complex lifeform like a mammal. On Earth it took about 5 billion. It seems like we took a longer time than needed.

I still say there is no such thing as not believing in evolution, there is only not understanding it. Saying you don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe in Calculus. They are each as proven as one another. And they are both undeniably true.

I really need to learn to stop clicking on the evolution threads.

 

[Alistar7]

I still say there is no such thing as not believing in evolution, there is only not understanding it. Saying you don't believe in evolution is like saying you don't believe in Calculus. They are each as proven as one another. And they are both undeniably true.

I really need to learn to stop clicking on the evolution threads.

Well said, faith cannot be changed with facts like science can and has been throughout time, you want to debunk the theory of evolution? Provide a TESTABLE alternative, one that can withstand the rigors of repetition without variance 1,000 times over. God should really just bust out a dna sample already, make this simple....

 

[DougyDanger]

"Ok. I say just this to those who don't believe for religious reasons. The main person given responsibility for the theory of evolution is Darwin. The man was college trained to be a priest. He was more religious than probably anyone you'll ever know, and he came up with this. Why do you have a problem with it."

Darwin left the persuit priesthood after one year (maybe longer) and turned his back on religion. However his theory also included a caveat...he believed in a 'designer'. This was included in the forward to the book, but that was left out when published. He was NOT a religious person. Educated in religion, but not religious. Besides the 'religious' training is not exactly anything to write home about. My friend's brother was trained as a priest and did not open the Bible for the first 3 years.

Regarding whales and pelvic bones. I have no idea. Now tell me, if they were in fact animals the size of a dog and then became whales...where is the fossile record of this? In order to propegate you would need a substantial population. Yet we have plenty of whale fossiles, but no dog like whale intermediates.

Also someone mentioned that the church has withstood scientific crisis in the past (Geocentric vs heliocentric). In all of those it was the people that stood for the church that had issues with science. If you looked at the scientific issue and the BIBLE there was no conflict. The Bible teaches that the earth is a sphere and hanging in a void. Pretty scientific if you ask me. Evolution is different than these issues. The Bible specifically teaches in creation. And if one is to question the authority of the Bible, then that is a whole new issue. Its either all right or all wrong. I know, I'm narrow minded and brain washed.... 🙂

 

[Alistar7]

Then it must be all wrong, but still a very colorfull collection of fables that teach excellent common moral and social values, like most religions. The fossil record is partially there for the whale, in museums here and around the world. This is one of the reasons it was used as an example, you are here posting so you have access to this information as much as I do, you just have no interest or desire to learn something that would directly conflict and prove everything you "believe" to be wrong.

Whale MACRO evolution

Whale Pelvis...tell me what the heck a whale needs a FEMUR FOR?????

Looks more like a hand than a flipper.....very strange, unlike any other sea creature :Q

 

[mikysee]

Who wrote the Bible? Where and how was it found?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: johnnytightlips
I don't want this to turn into a flame war. I was talking to my friend after class (we watched a movie discussing some aspects of evolution) and she goes "I don't believe in that evolution sh!t"... she's a devout Catholic so I'm sure her upbringing was evolution is devil talk, etc.

My questions were
1. What is the Catholic church's stance on evolution?
2. What is a good site explaining evolution? She said "well why don't apes give birth to humans", so obviously she doesn't understand the concept too well.
3. Where are all the "missing-links"... Neanderthals and the like?

Well, I'm not gonna read this whole thread 'cause I'm tired, but...

1. AFAIK the pope has actually deemed evolution a valid theory, non-contradictory to the catholic faith (I could be wrong so dan't ask me for resources).
2. I dunno any good sites off-hand but there's a book: "evolution and the myth of creationism" by Tim M. Berra which would be a good read.
3. Neandertals are not ancestral to Homo sapiens. Astrolapithicus, Homo erectus and others were. IIRC, there was a split after Astrolapithicus or one of the pre-Homo genera which went Neandertal and Homo xxx. Neandertals migrated to colder climates earlier than the Homo genera, but were either out competed by the Homo genera or died out on their own. There's more than ample supporting evidence in the fossil record. You can follow the transitions from small-sloping-forhead-large-jaw-small cranium to large-forhead-small-jaw-large-cranium very well. Not to mention the transition in the thigh and hip structures which allowed us to stand upright.

She said "well why don't apes give birth to humans"

This is, unfortunately, the uninformed yet common skepticism exibted by someone (most people) completely uneducated about the debate. So many people grew up thinking only one way and were never educated about the other position (if only for ammunition during a debate), that they assume completely false statements which perpetuate their ignorance of the subject. One big reason that creationists refuse to educate themselves is because that evolution implies that we, as a species, are on the same levels as that of any other animal. Another obviously being that evolution implies no special creation.

Anyway, that's why it irritates me when people say evolution shouldn't be taught in schools. Evolution is nothing like a religion. It is a scientific theory, which is a perfect demonstratable example for the scientific method in the classroom. It promotes scientific reasoning and logic. If people wanna be uptight about "fairness" then have a religions class taught as a diversity course. But no, we can't have our kids being exposed to other religions, God forbid they learn something, or decide something for themselves.

My $0.02

[edit]
I'll say one more thing about the so-called scientific creationism that some have mentioned. It's not science, straight up. When you introduce an entirely untestable assumption into your "scientific theory" (God, or some higher power) then it doesn't hold under the basis of science. It stands fine under the basis of faith, but not science. Oh yeah, and there's lots of intermediary species in the fossil record including some of those I mentioned, and besides, using the term "intermediary" is misleading without defining start and end points in time.
[/edit]

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: Atlantean

Originally posted by: Howard Neandertals weren't our ancestors.

Prove it.

You prove it.

FU stop denying reality.


Ausm

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: johnnytightlips I don't want this to turn into a flame war. I was talking to my friend after class (we watched a movie discussing some aspects of evolution) and she goes "I don't believe in that evolution sh!t"... she's a devout Catholic so I'm sure her upbringing was evolution is devil talk, etc. My questions were 1. What is the Catholic church's stance on evolution? 2. What is a good site explaining evolution? She said "well why don't apes give birth to humans", so obviously she doesn't understand the concept too well. 3. Where are all the "missing-links"... Neanderthals and the like?

3. Religious zealots who refuse to belive cold hard facts because some book tells them not to.

Amen no pun intended 😀

Ausm

 

[DougyDanger]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Then it must be all wrong, but still a very colorfull collection of fables that teach excellent common moral and social values, like most religions. The fossil record is partially there for the whale, in museums here and around the world. This is one of the reasons it was used as an example, you are here posting so you have access to this information as much as I do, you just have no interest or desire to learn something that would directly conflict and prove everything you "believe" to be wrong.

Whale MACRO evolution

Whale Pelvis...tell me what the heck a whale needs a FEMUR FOR?????

Looks more like a hand than a flipper.....very strange, unlike any other sea creature :Q

Stand a horse upright and they look like humans...does that mean we evolved from them?

About whale pelveses...this bone is used to support the reproductive organs. It has been found to have a different function in males and females.
http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask01/0201.html (whale expert and evolutionist)

Without this bone, whales could not reproduce. Calling it a pelvis or femur is really akin to data mining.