Lets talk about Evolution.

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Skold
Evolutionary theory is just another form of science fiction created by atheists.

supported by gobs of evidence, right?

 

[SaturnX]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
.... You say he's a crackpot I say his work in genetics is legitimate. You can then go online and find a group of scientists who support your view, and I can do the same....

... uh however his work has already been discredited by far more reputable sources throughout this thread.

Originally posted by: stinkz
Most biology books, after explaining genetic movement within species (microevolution), go on to claim that it is believed that such movements, given enough time, will cause changes in species (macroevolution).

There is no such thing as "micro" and "macro" evolution, if you actually took the time to dig deeper into the studies on evolution, you'd understand that. Evolution is evolution, lots of "micro" doesn't result in "macro". Evolution = Evolution.

--Mark

 

[DougK62]

I'm laughing my arse off here watching Garth repeatedly own blackangst1. Classic.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: SaturnX

Originally posted by: blackangst1
.... You say he's a crackpot I say his work in genetics is legitimate. You can then go online and find a group of scientists who support your view, and I can do the same....

... uh however his work has already been discredited by far more reputable sources throughout this thread.

uh I guess you are referring to Garth as your reputable source here? Interesting indeed....apparently "reputable" is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Originally posted by: stinkz
Most biology books, after explaining genetic movement within species (microevolution), go on to claim that it is believed that such movements, given enough time, will cause changes in species (macroevolution).

There is no such thing as "micro" and "macro" evolution, if you actually took the time to dig deeper into the studies on evolution, you'd understand that. Evolution is evolution, lots of "micro" doesn't result in "macro". Evolution = Evolution.

--Mark

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: DougK62
I'm laughing my arse off here watching Garth repeatedly own blackangst1. Classic.

It sure is wierd I dont feel owned...I feel like both of us made contributions as to our opinions, we both used sources that can both be called credible or not depending on who you ask, and never once did we personally attack each other...

As I stated earlier, we obviously have a difference of opinion. None of what either of us has presented can really be called fact, because the scientific community is also at war with the evolution vs creation debate. Unfortunately, neither side can truly be "proven" beyond a shadow of doubt in the same way as, say, the composition of salt is NaCl, or sodium and chloride. You cant really disprove that. I also said I would agree to disagree, and admitted it's all really a matter of view.

*shrug* If you got a rise out of me getting...er...owned...cool 🙂 Glad we could make your day 🙂

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: blackangst1
As far as our biological systems...yeah we are similar to many creatures. But humans posses 2 things no other creatures do - a soul, and the ability to reason. But thats another topic for another day.

as to the first, have any proof of said soul?

as to the second, ever seen monkeys use tools to accomplish what they need to do?

even my cat had the ability to reason things out.

 

[Atheus]

It amazes me that people are actually arguing about the _existance_ of evolution in this thread, presumably because of the word 'theory'... Guys, that's like saying gravity doesn't exist because there are 'theories or gravity'... Evolution happens, it just does, it's clear. Darwin's 'theory of evolution' attempts to explain _how_ it happens and how it affects the world.

 

[yhelothar]

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.

Unexplained gaps? They are unexplained to you, because you haven't educated yourself to understand them. There are A PLETHORA UPON PLETHORA of "MISSING LINKS" in the fossil record that proves evolution. UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of missing links that come from the fossil record.

Everything from fishes, turning to amphibians, to reptiles that don't need to lay eggs in water, to full land reptiles. It all links together in evolutionary steps. You don't find reptile fossils before amphibians, just like you don't find amphibian fossils before fish fossils.
The same is true with plants. Plants started as mosses, which are basically primitive plants with no stems, shoot systems, nor seeds. The mosses live in water. Then in the fossil record, it shows the mosses evolving to plants with shoots systems, but with no seeds. These are called ferns. You don't see ferns before mosses.

Another thing that I found interesting is that there are actually fish that has huge lobed fins that can run out of water. One example is the lungfish, given it's name because it's a fish with lungs! Lungfishes actually dwell in almost dried up lakes, so they can run out when the lake that they're in dries up. It's a good example of Darwin's survival of the fittest.

Another interesting evolutionary link that can be seen are the evolution of mammals. Mammals are very different as they have placential breeding, or breeding inside the uterus, and not an external egg. But if you've been through basic biology, you'll know that there are mammals that lay eggs, such as the platypus and there are animals that breed their young in pouches, such as kangaroos. Both the platypus and kangaroos are both evolutionary links up to the placental breeders. They are all found in the fossil records. But those two kinds of breeding are much inferior than placental breeding, which is why they have gone extinct, except in Australia, which has been isolated from the rest of the world much earlier than any continent. It is also interesting to to note that in result of Australia being isolated, it also has the most unique animals that are only found in Australia. This is more evidence through biology and geology that proves evolution.

These are just a few examples of evolution in the fossil record. There is a tremendous amount of evidence found in the fossil record that supports evolution. Anyone who has studied it WILL see evolution as factual.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

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.

Unexplained gaps? They are unexplained to you, because you haven't educated yourself to understand them. There are A PLETHORA UPON PLETHORA of "MISSING LINKS" in the fossil record that proves evolution. UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of missing links that come from the fossil record.

Everything from fishes, turning to amphibians, to reptiles that don't need to lay eggs in water, to full land reptiles. It all links together in evolutionary steps. You don't find reptile fossils before amphibians, just like you don't find amphibian fossils before fish fossils.
The same is true with plants. Plants started as mosses, which are basically primitive plants with no stems, shoot systems, nor seeds. The mosses live in water. Then in the fossil record, it shows the mosses evolving to plants with shoots systems, but with no seeds. These are called ferns. You don't see ferns before mosses.

Another thing that I found interesting is that there are actually fish that has huge lobed fins that can run out of water. One example is the lungfish, given it's name because it's a fish with lungs! Lungfishes actually dwell in almost dried up lakes, so they can run out when the lake that they're in dries up. It's a good example of Darwin's survival of the fittest.

Another interesting evolutionary link that can be seen are the evolution of mammals. Mammals are very different as they have placential breeding, or breeding inside the uterus, and not an external egg. But if you've been through basic biology, you'll know that there are mammals that lay eggs, such as the platypus and there are animals that breed their young in pouches, such as kangaroos. Both the platypus and kangaroos are both evolutionary links up to the placental breeders. They are all found in the fossil records. But those two kinds of breeding are much inferior than placental breeding, which is why they have gone extinct, except in Australia, which has been isolated from the rest of the world much earlier than any continent. It is also interesting to to note that in result of Australia being isolated, it also has the most unique animals that are only found in Australia. This is more evidence through biology and geology that proves evolution.

These are just a few examples of evolution in the fossil record. There is a tremendous amount of evidence found in the fossil record that supports evolution. Anyone who has studied it WILL see evolution as factual.

wait a minute.

the first "plants" were algae-like, not mosses. Mosses actually have stems and a very primitive leaf and root-like structures.

Modern lung fish don't have lobed fins capable of "walking". When the water source goes dry they seal them selves in a mud cocoon. They breathe air because they live in oxygen poor waters.

The walking catfish can leave a disappearing pool, but it doesn't have lungs.

Current biological studies now indicate that marsupials are not the forebearers of placentals, but an offshoot. The monotremes (egg layers - platypus and echidna) are definite throw-backs. Marsupials are hardly inferior to placentals, however they were overwhelmed in South America when the land bridge between NA and SA formed. The influx of many non-native animals had a profound effect. Australia had already broken off of SA and therefore little if any placentals made it there, effectively isolating the marsupials.

However, the diversity of marsupial forms in Australia, New Zealand and Tasmainia show a pattern of convergent evolution (seperate species evolving into forms that look similiar).

Fascinating stuff.

 

[yhelothar]

You're probably right about algea appearing before mosses. But either way, mosses do not have stems. They are considered non-vascular plants, which means they do not have shoot systems that pump water throughout their body cavities. Thus they are grouped together with algae.

You are probably right about the modern lung fishes. But there are many lobed finned fishes that can use them as weak legs, and swim with them at the same time.

Do you have sources to back up your claim on the marsupials? What I've learned in biology was that the fossil record showed that there were many marsupials in the fossil record that isn't in the continent of australia, but have all gone extinct due to the abundance of placentials. I don't understand how marsupials are no less inferior to placentials. Fetuses in placentials do not need to do anything to survive, as they are constantly safe in the mother's womb, and constantly fed through the umbellical cord. Marsupials, on the other hand, must crawl and latch on to the nipple of the mother for several weeks to months, depending on the animal, resulting in many falling off and dying prematurely.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

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.

Unexplained gaps? They are unexplained to you, because you haven't educated yourself to understand them. There are A PLETHORA UPON PLETHORA of "MISSING LINKS" in the fossil record that proves evolution. UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of missing links that come from the fossil record.

Everything from fishes, turning to amphibians, to reptiles that don't need to lay eggs in water, to full land reptiles. It all links together in evolutionary steps. You don't find reptile fossils before amphibians, just like you don't find amphibian fossils before fish fossils.
The same is true with plants. Plants started as mosses, which are basically primitive plants with no stems, shoot systems, nor seeds. The mosses live in water. Then in the fossil record, it shows the mosses evolving to plants with shoots systems, but with no seeds. These are called ferns. You don't see ferns before mosses.

Another thing that I found interesting is that there are actually fish that has huge lobed fins that can run out of water. One example is the lungfish, given it's name because it's a fish with lungs! Lungfishes actually dwell in almost dried up lakes, so they can run out when the lake that they're in dries up. It's a good example of Darwin's survival of the fittest.

Another interesting evolutionary link that can be seen are the evolution of mammals. Mammals are very different as they have placential breeding, or breeding inside the uterus, and not an external egg. But if you've been through basic biology, you'll know that there are mammals that lay eggs, such as the platypus and there are animals that breed their young in pouches, such as kangaroos. Both the platypus and kangaroos are both evolutionary links up to the placental breeders. They are all found in the fossil records. But those two kinds of breeding are much inferior than placental breeding, which is why they have gone extinct, except in Australia, which has been isolated from the rest of the world much earlier than any continent. It is also interesting to to note that in result of Australia being isolated, it also has the most unique animals that are only found in Australia. This is more evidence through biology and geology that proves evolution.

These are just a few examples of evolution in the fossil record. There is a tremendous amount of evidence found in the fossil record that supports evolution. Anyone who has studied it WILL see evolution as factual.

OK you suck at reading because I already named those examples you did myself. And, again, in case you didnt read it, I said I never denied the existance of evolution itself. Only the theory that a bipod walking homosapien somehow evolved from some other totally unrelated species. There is plenty of "transitional" species fossels, but none for humans.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Atheus
It amazes me that people are actually arguing about the _existance_ of evolution in this thread, presumably because of the word 'theory'... Guys, that's like saying gravity doesn't exist because there are 'theories or gravity'... Evolution happens, it just does, it's clear. Darwin's 'theory of evolution' attempts to explain _how_ it happens and how it affects the world.

I've read this thread numerous times and I cant find anyone who posted a denial of evolution itself...including me.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
You're probably right about algea appearing before mosses. But either way, mosses do not have stems. They are considered non-vascular plants, which means they do not have shoot systems that pump water throughout their body cavities. Thus they are grouped together with algae.

You are probably right about the modern lung fishes. But there are many lobed finned fishes that can use them as weak legs, and swim with them at the same time.

Do you have sources to back up your claim on the marsupials? What I've learned in biology was that the fossil record showed that there were many marsupials in the fossil record that isn't in the continent of australia, but have all gone extinct due to the abundance of placentials. I don't understand how marsupials are no less inferior to placentials. Fetuses in placentials do not need to do anything to survive, as they are constantly safe in the mother's womb, and constantly fed through the umbellical cord. Marsupials, on the other hand, must crawl and latch on to the nipple of the mother for several weeks to months, depending on the animal, resulting in many falling off and dying prematurely.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/marsupials.html

its a little old but shows what was discovered by 1994.

The displacement of marsupials by placentals doesn't necessarily mean that placentals are superior. It just means they were better adapted to their environment. Environmental changes and other stuff also determines what lives and dies. Oppossums are still doing fine in NA and SA despite the over abundance of placentals.

Too many factors to name one cause of any species demise.

 

[TheRyuu]

Oh sh!t, flamewar 😛

Anyway, there is a common misconception of the evolution of ape to human. I think (this is from last year bio) that the "first" humans SPLIT off from the ape evolutionary chain and stared their own, which eventually led to us, so technically we are related to apes, yet we have our very own evolutionary chain? (like i said its from bio from last year)

Evolution is nothing more than mutations that happen to benifit the species in question (in this case humans). You can see evolution TODAY. Over the past couple centuries, humans have gotten taller, and grow to taller hights since it is benificial to the species.

There is sooo much HARD evidence supporting evolution.

And what does that "Adam and Eve" thing have, a book?

 

[Benthere]

Why is growing taller beneficial to the human species? I think it is a result of better food supply. I do believe in evolution,even cars evolve. But read "the book" with a quest for knowledge and open mind. Afterall evolution had to be created in the beginning.

 

[Green Man]

Originally posted by: Strk

There aren't other theories. You have a scientific theory, the theory of evolution, and you have various theological explanations.

/thread

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Benthere
Why is growing taller beneficial to the human species? I think it is a result of better food supply. I do believe in evolution,even cars evolve. But read "the book" with a quest for knowledge and open mind. Afterall evolution had to be created in the beginning.

More height allows you to see further, especially over tall grass. That means better hunting capability and better ability to see predators like lions. Why do you think some Africans are so tall? In Europe, a larger body might help with heat conservation. Besides practical reasons, it could just be that women like tall men (they do) so they reproduced more... The inverse would explain why women are shorter on average. The point is, just because you can't think of reasons for a certain trait becoming prevalent, doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
You're probably right about algea appearing before mosses. But either way, mosses do not have stems. They are considered non-vascular plants, which means they do not have shoot systems that pump water throughout their body cavities. Thus they are grouped together with algae.

You are probably right about the modern lung fishes. But there are many lobed finned fishes that can use them as weak legs, and swim with them at the same time.

Do you have sources to back up your claim on the marsupials? What I've learned in biology was that the fossil record showed that there were many marsupials in the fossil record that isn't in the continent of australia, but have all gone extinct due to the abundance of placentials. I don't understand how marsupials are no less inferior to placentials. Fetuses in placentials do not need to do anything to survive, as they are constantly safe in the mother's womb, and constantly fed through the umbellical cord. Marsupials, on the other hand, must crawl and latch on to the nipple of the mother for several weeks to months, depending on the animal, resulting in many falling off and dying prematurely.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/marsupials.html

its a little old but shows what was discovered by 1994.

The displacement of marsupials by placentals doesn't necessarily mean that placentals are superior. It just means they were better adapted to their environment. Environmental changes and other stuff also determines what lives and dies. Oppossums are still doing fine in NA and SA despite the over abundance of placentals.

Too many factors to name one cause of any species demise.

I don't see how your article says ANYTHING about why marsupials went extinct.

Opposums may still be abundant as they are very small, so they do not require much resources for them to survive. When was the last time you heard about a species of mice on the endangered species list?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

I don't see how your article says ANYTHING about why marsupials went extinct.

Opposums may still be abundant as they are very small, so they do not require much resources for them to survive. When was the last time you heard about a species of mice on the endangered species list?

last week, actually

 

[Tom]

What about the clitoris ?