Lets talk about Evolution.

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Personally, IMHO, evolution has too many unexplained gaps that even science cant fill.

First, that there exists what you call "gaps" does not render the theory false. Second, upon what basis do you assert that science can't fill these alleged "gaps" of which you speaK?

The fossil record which is our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present.

This is a frequently parroted strawman. In biology there is no clear distinction between "transitional form" and "fully-formed." Rather, when the evolution is properly understood it becomes clear that literally EVERY fossil represents a transitional form in the same way that each person is a "transitional form" between his parents and his children.

In other words, there is no proof of any kind of a "missing link".

What would this "missing link" acutally link together if it existed, according to you?

The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best.

Ignorance.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.

Again, you put forth a strawman. In reality there is no clear delineation between "apes" and "man." For all intents and purposes, men are apes. *WE* created the distinction to separate ourselves from apes in our language, but biolgically there is less difference between our species and the chimpanzee than there is between the chimnpanzee and a spider monkey. Do you understand that? It is unambiguous in the genetic evidence that our species has a common anscestor with apes.

Again, scientific proof, but none of a missing link. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never anything close to a transitional creature.

Simply false.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc...tion1.html#morphological_intermediates

There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals.

Abiogenesis is not evolution, Poindexter, so you can take your impressive strawman collection and peddle it on some other forum.

Even single cell life firms are so complex that man has yet to create a living organism that hasnt already been known.

I can see the roller-skating goalposts from here.

Men were creating unique and unknown organisms back before they were men. It's called sexual reproduction.

These are just two examples. There is a study called Darwin's Black Box which scientifically explains those two facts. It is very damning evidence AGAINST evolution.

Behe didn't conduct a study. And his laughable claims have been so thoroughly trounced in the academic community that its somewhat embarassing for you that you'd even mention his book in support of anything.

As far as Adam and Eve go...if you translate the original text from scripture (Hebrew), it clearly leaves open the possibility that Adam and Eve were the FIRST humans created, but certainly not the only. So, that would explain that.

No, it doesn't explain it. It doesn't explain anything, because the same so-called "explanation" could equally "explain" literally any possible set of evidence. Real explanations not only explain why we observe certain phenomena, but also why we don't observe contradictory evidence.

-Garth

 

[imported_Snagle]

P
W
N
E
D

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: remagavon
I like that theory about how everything is a hologram, which explains strange phenomena like repeated coincidences etc.

sheldrake ?

Yep.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I like pie.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Snagle

Originally posted by: Dumac
Most of the people from when i took my biology class didn't believe in evolution =( I don't understand that...

it's called ignorance and it's (often) accompanied by its good friend -- a closed mind.

Or perhaps an open mind

 

[CheesePoofs]

Evolution is one of best supported theories in all of science. It happens and so I believe in it, if it must be put that way.

If you don't believe in evolution, don't get a flue shot every year, just get it once. Why get it more than once if the virus is just going to stay the same from year to year and not evolve to become resistant to the shot?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: flexy
the much more interesting question would be....if there are circumstances like this LEFT ALONE....would life evolve ALWAYS and automatically ?
(Eg. early planets, circumstances right.)

Let me preface this by saying I'm quite drunk.

But does it matter that life would ALWAYS evolve? I think it's more important that life could POSSIBLY evolve.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: flexy
the much more interesting question would be....if there are circumstances like this LEFT ALONE....would life evolve ALWAYS and automatically ?
(Eg. early planets, circumstances right.)

Let me preface this by saying I'm quite drunk.

But does it matter that life would ALWAYS evolve? I think it's more important that life could POSSIBLY evolve.

**edit**

Nevermind. I misconstrued what you were saying.

 

[MBrown]

I do not believe in evolution.

 

[CStan]

I have some questions about evolution:

First of all, I can understand certain "adaptations" of organisms to their environment. ie human body no longer creating Vitamin C, since diet changed to include more fruit. Or even something like lizards growing longer legs when they moved to an environment with longer grass.

However, I have trouble believing some more "complex" features of animals could have come to existance from random mutations. Such as: Carnivorous plants that secrete a scent of rotting meat to attract flies. How does this happen? Were there different species of plants before that had other scents that failed, and thus died off? Is this a trait that randomly happened?

Another example are those fish that have a piece of skin in front of their mouths that "bait" fish (looks like a worm). Was this also some freak mutation?

Basically what I'm getting at is: Is their some "intelligent" adaptation that occurs? Can the plant somehow detect (at a genetic level) that flies like rotting meat? Can the fish detect that other fish like worms and adapt their feeding methods by growing this worm?

Hmm, not sure how much sense this makes but I havent taken a biology course in a long time.

 

[SparkyJJO]

lets not
it gets nowhere, all it does is start arguements

for the record, I don't believe evolution at all

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: CStan
I have some questions about evolution:

First of all, I can understand certain "adaptations" of organisms to their environment. ie human body no longer creating Vitamin C, since diet changed to include more fruit. Or even something like lizards growing longer legs when they moved to an environment with longer grass.

However, I have trouble believing some more "complex" features of animals could have come to existance from random mutations. Such as: Carnivorous plants that secrete a scent of rotting meat to attract flies. How does this happen? Were there different species of plants before that had other scents that failed, and thus died off? Is this a trait that randomly happened?

Another example are those fish that have a piece of skin in front of their mouths that "bait" fish (looks like a worm). Was this also some freak mutation?

Basically what I'm getting at is: Is their some "intelligent" adaptation that occurs? Can the plant somehow detect (at a genetic level) that flies like rotting meat? Can the fish detect that other fish like worms and adapt their feeding methods by growing this worm?

Hmm, not sure how much sense this makes but I havent taken a biology course in a long time.

It's not that things detect when something happens, it's that those things that do get that occasional adaptation are the ones that go on to survive. Take your example of the plant (isn't it a mushroom?) that gives off the smell of rotten flesh. There could have been other variations of it at some point, but the one that survived is the one that had more organisms come to it and spread its seeds or spores (depending on what it is ).

The same thing for snapping turtles. They aren't particularly fast, but what do they have? I suppose you could describe it as an extra piece of skin in their mouths that looks like a worm. Despite what people want to say that evolution doesn't explain things, it really does.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CStan
I have some questions about evolution:

First of all, I can understand certain "adaptations" of organisms to their environment. ie human body no longer creating Vitamin C, since diet changed to include more fruit. Or even something like lizards growing longer legs when they moved to an environment with longer grass.

However, I have trouble believing some more "complex" features of animals could have come to existance from random mutations. Such as: Carnivorous plants that secrete a scent of rotting meat to attract flies. How does this happen? Were there different species of plants before that had other scents that failed, and thus died off? Is this a trait that randomly happened?

Another example are those fish that have a piece of skin in front of their mouths that "bait" fish (looks like a worm). Was this also some freak mutation?

Basically what I'm getting at is: Is their some "intelligent" adaptation that occurs? Can the plant somehow detect (at a genetic level) that flies like rotting meat? Can the fish detect that other fish like worms and adapt their feeding methods by growing this worm?

Hmm, not sure how much sense this makes but I havent taken a biology course in a long time.

The flesh eating plants are the result of genes introduced into plants roots in the years following a Zoglar colonial vessel that crashed here 30 million years ago.

 

[Tangerines]

Evolution isn't something you either believe or don't.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: The Godfather
Do you believe it?

I personally don't know. The idea of a common ancestor (for example: Adam and Eve) is kind of weird. Because if you think about it, when Adam and Eve have kids, who are the kids gonna mate with? Themselves? And even if a brother and a sister are willing to do that, what ensured that they even had a boy and a girl?

I dont believe we came from apes, nor do i believe that some guy in the sky flipped his majic wand and created man.

Personally, IMHO, evolution has too many unexplained gaps that even science cant fill. The fossil record which is our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. In other words, there is no proof of any kind of a "missing link".

The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds. Again, scientific proof, but none of a missing link. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never anything close to a transitional creature.

There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even single cell life firms are so complex that man has yet to create a living organism that hasnt already been known.

These are just two examples. There is a study called Darwin's Black Box which scientifically explains those two facts. It is very damning evidence AGAINST evolution.

As far as Adam and Eve go...if you translate the original text from scripture (Hebrew), it clearly leaves open the possibility that Adam and Eve were the FIRST humans created, but certainly not the only. So, that would explain that.

this is possibly the dumbest arguement I have ever heard.

what percentage of life forms get fossilized?

Adam and Eve had 2 sons (male) and one killed the other. Where did we come from then? Or was God creating all kinds of people in some sort of experiment?

Transitional forms have been found for a variety of fauna.

Eveolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: The Godfather

Originally posted by: Ryan
Why is it that everyone who starts these dumbass threads has never taken a biology class, or passed it?

I have a B in Honors Biology Hard as hell, i hate that class but i find evolution fascinating.

well hello mr. fancy pants

 

[pcnerd37]

I predict this to become a locked thread very soon...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Darwin's Black Box is basically a scientific approach to evolution. In the study, and in depth, it basically states what I summerized: there is no proof, not even close, of a transitional creature; and that the thoery of evolution fails to address the problem of how a living organism comes to be from dead ones. Example is the human body is made up of X numer of chemicals that appear in our periodic table. But if you take all those chemicals in a lab, you cant throw them together and make a human. Man has yet to create even a single cell life form out of non-living organisms.

1) an incomplete record is not evidence that the theory is wrong. the only evidence of any theory being wrong is an observation that cannot be explained by the theory, or one that contradicts the theory. lack of evidence merely means that there is a lack of evidence. no one knows how gravity works either.

2) evolution doesn't explain how life came about because evolution makes no claim as to the origins of life, merely the origins of species. evolution explains how multitudes of species came about after life started. that isn't a problem of evolution.

 

[silent tone]

Originally posted by: Tangerines
Evolution isn't something you either believe or don't.

QFT

 

[The Godfather]

I also have a question. Mimicry and camouflage exist and we all know that. Well, how does something like that occur? Lets say a type of snake gets hunted easily because of its contrast to its enviorment, what in the world would cause its siblings to change their appearance over time? An organism can't just all of a sudden start changing colors because it lives in that type of surrounding.

 

[shoRunner]

Originally posted by: Snagle

Originally posted by: Dumac
Most of the people from when i took my biology class didn't believe in evolution =( I don't understand that...

it's called ignorance and it's (often) accompanied by its good friend -- a closed mind.

i would think it would be harder to believe anything other than evolution, since it seems to be the most accepted and pushed, therefore making anyone believe something other than what is majorly accepted having the more open mind. though i do not think that what one believes can easily put them in the generalization of having an open or closed mind

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Adam and Eve had 2 sons (male) and one killed the other. Where did we come from then? Or was God creating all kinds of people in some sort of experiment?

Transitional forms have been found for a variety of fauna.

Eveolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.

according to the bible adam and eve had many children, of all genders. its funny when people speak of what they do not know with such certainty...on either side of the fence.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Personally, IMHO, evolution has too many unexplained gaps that even science cant fill.

First, that there exists what you call "gaps" does not render the theory false. Second, upon what basis do you assert that science can't fill these alleged "gaps" of which you speaK?

Well, two of these gaps I have previously stated. And I supposed I should change my statement to science has yet to explain them. Hows that?

The fossil record which is our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present.

This is a frequently parroted strawman. In biology there is no clear distinction between "transitional form" and "fully-formed." Rather, when the evolution is properly understood it becomes clear that literally EVERY fossil represents a transitional form in the same way that each person is a "transitional form" between his parents and his children.

Call it what you will, a strawman it is not. It is a viable scientific fact. Biology clearly defines a transitionanal form. We have many transitional fossils for many creatures, including whales, apes, and fish. In fact, the first creature labled transitional is the Archaeopteryx in 1861, and seven more of these transitional creatures have been found since then. A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird. The evolutionary route from reptile to mammal is also documented. Between the Permian and Triassic periods is when we have fossels supporting this transition. Step-by-step the reptilian jaw, with five separate bones, changes to the mammalian jaw, with only one bone, the dentary.

In other words, there is no proof of any kind of a "missing link".

What would this "missing link" acutally link together if it existed, according to you?
We have evidence of many transitional creatures, yet none for humans. Why is that do you think?

The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best.

Ignorance.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

Spent a bit of time on this site, and it is interesting indeed; however, I havent yet found any kind of evidence other than early man and apes. No where does it show any kind of transitional proof like we have with other species.

So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.

Again, you put forth a strawman. In reality there is no clear delineation between "apes" and "man." For all intents and purposes, men are apes. *WE* created the distinction to separate ourselves from apes in our language, but biolgically there is less difference between our species and the chimpanzee than there is between the chimnpanzee and a spider monkey. Do you understand that? It is unambiguous in the genetic evidence that our species has a common anscestor with apes.

The concept of 98% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA frequently advanced by evolutionists is deceptive at best. This similarity is an exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man andchimpanzee. The sequence analysis that was made is called "DNA hybridization" On the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins, and only those limited number of proteins have been compared. However there are about one hundred thousand genes, and therefore one hundred thousand proteins encoded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98% similar just because of the similarity in 40 out of 100,000 proteins. Sorry, that's science.

Again, scientific proof, but none of a missing link. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never anything close to a transitional creature.

Simply false.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc...tion1.html#morphological_intermediates

Again, see above.

There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals.

Abiogenesis is not evolution, Poindexter, so you can take your impressive strawman collection and peddle it on some other forum.

Never claimed it was; however, it is one flaw in the pie that makes up so-called evolution.

Even single cell life firms are so complex that man has yet to create a living organism that hasnt already been known.

I can see the roller-skating goalposts from here.

Men were creating unique and unknown organisms back before they were men. It's called sexual reproduction.

Do what now? You are taking my stement way out of context, and you know it. At least you admit to creationism

These are just two examples. There is a study called Darwin's Black Box which scientifically explains those two facts. It is very damning evidence AGAINST evolution.

Behe didn't conduct a study. And his laughable claims have been so thoroughly trounced in the academic community that its somewhat embarassing for you that you'd even mention his book in support of anything.

What's the difference to me quoting a scientific study and you linking a usenet webpage devoted to the debate of creationism and evolution? You havent exactly made a case either...

As far as Adam and Eve go...if you translate the original text from scripture (Hebrew), it clearly leaves open the possibility that Adam and Eve were the FIRST humans created, but certainly not the only. So, that would explain that.

No, it doesn't explain it. It doesn't explain anything, because the same so-called "explanation" could equally "explain" literally any possible set of evidence. Real explanations not only explain why we observe certain phenomena, but also why we don't observe contradictory evidence.

OK let's explore

-Garth

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: CStan
I have some questions about evolution:

First of all, I can understand certain "adaptations" of organisms to their environment. ie human body no longer creating Vitamin C, since diet changed to include more fruit. Or even something like lizards growing longer legs when they moved to an environment with longer grass.

However, I have trouble believing some more "complex" features of animals could have come to existance from random mutations. Such as: Carnivorous plants that secrete a scent of rotting meat to attract flies. How does this happen? Were there different species of plants before that had other scents that failed, and thus died off? Is this a trait that randomly happened?

Another example are those fish that have a piece of skin in front of their mouths that "bait" fish (looks like a worm). Was this also some freak mutation?

Basically what I'm getting at is: Is their some "intelligent" adaptation that occurs? Can the plant somehow detect (at a genetic level) that flies like rotting meat? Can the fish detect that other fish like worms and adapt their feeding methods by growing this worm?

Hmm, not sure how much sense this makes but I havent taken a biology course in a long time.

well yeah exactly my point (what i wrote above).

And all those "features" *supposedly* made by random mutations, by some cosmic particles hitting DNA and, thus, creating a number of mutations - whereas the fittest feature/mutation is the one which survives ?

(Thats how i understand it...because the "worm-thingy" doesnt grow out of nowhere....and evolution explains it as "adaption"/change...which BASICALLY is initated by random mutation.

other thought:

Evolution basically means evolution from a LESS perfect organism/form to a better one, right ?

So..let's go millions of years back..dinosaurs, or even before. Humans dont even exist. Oh, even further maybe, mammals dont even exist.

Fish in the water, maybe just starting to go on land and later to become mammals.

But how i turn it...at EVERY point in time there were animals/flora...so...would this mean that those early fish/flora etc. were "imperfect" ? (Compared to millions of years later ?)

(I can, however, clearly see the evolution eg. when life started to come out of the water and spread everywhere else...actually a GOOD example FOR evolution)

What was the, say, earliest animals on LAND...if we take those as example..based on "evolution" they couldnt have been "perfect" because it were the earliest ones and there was not much evolution/mutation going on for them to adapt on land.....but then they didnt die out either - RATHER evolved further !

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
lets not
it gets nowhere, all it does is start arguements

for the record, I don't believe evolution at all

Where is YOUR argument ?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: The Godfather
I also have a question. Mimicry and camouflage exist and we all know that. Well, how does something like that occur? Lets say a type of snake gets hunted easily because of its contrast to its enviorment, what in the world would cause its siblings to change their appearance over time? An organism can't just all of a sudden start changing colors because it lives in that type of surrounding.

Actually, yes it can. Read up on octopi. They do it several times a day