Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Evolution No Solution!


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#16    Seraphina

Seraphina

    Voted Best Member 2005

  • Member
  • 7,133 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2003
  • Location:Paisley, Scotland

  • Everyone likes a smouldering and sexy glare from a diminutive scientist.

Posted 23 November 2005 - 02:45 PM

Quote

how could all of this balanced system have produced itself by accident?


Because if it wasn't balanced, it wouldn't exist. The reason everything fits so well into its niche is because it's spent millions upon millions of years adapting to fit into it...evolution isn't a blink and you'll miss is process.

Let's not forget that we're not the only planet in the universe tongue.gif Every other planet in our solar system is a barren wasteland...if that's the norm, then all of this occuring by chance isn't actually so surprising...even if it is a billion to one, earth is only one among billions of planets.

Quote

Hold on, you are telling me that a theory is based on carefull observation (i agree), but do you think the evolution of all species from a single common ancestor is a valid scientific theory??


All species only evolved from a single common ancestor in the strictest possible sense of the world...the fact is that evolution has branches off so many times that any commonalities are very much lost. Generally speaking, we don't (and probably can't) trace that far back. Usually we can determine the common ancestor of any given family of animals however (primates for example).

However, since you asked...yes, it is a valid scientific theory. One that has withstood the test of time, and countless attempts to bebunk it. The fact is that evolution is pretty much rock solid, and just because you either don't understand it, or refuse to accept it, doesn't change the fact that at the moment it's certainly the closest thing we have to hard truth.

Posted Image

Apparantly, over on Exchristian.Net, they say that I'm "probably the smartest person" on UM....that is so cool...

#17    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 23 November 2005 - 06:58 PM

Lemme see if this helps...All plants common ancestor was the single-celled algae..as evolution occured, differnet and more specialized plantes evolved...that is how we have trees and grass...some wanted to harness the ground, while others wanted to gather more sunlight when it had competition. As plants evolved, they got more specialized and adapted to their environments....The environments didnt create themselves for the plants, the plants evolved to fit the environment.

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#18    Hehe

Hehe

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 172 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005

Posted 23 November 2005 - 07:12 PM

Quote


Lemme see if this helps...All plants common ancestor was the single-celled algae..as evolution occured, differnet and more specialized plantes evolved...that is how we have trees and grass...some wanted to harness the ground, while others wanted to gather more sunlight when it had competition. As plants evolved, they got more specialized and adapted to their environments....The environments didnt create themselves for the plants, the plants evolved to fit the environment.

Yes yes i get that part but thanx. Why cant plants evolve into animals that utilize the sun. That way they dont have to grow tall to utilize sun but move around?


#19    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 23 November 2005 - 07:17 PM

because once they evolved into the early "plant stage", they canot devolve back to their ancestor, and evolve into animals...they cannot evolve a nervous system, a circulatory system, or anything else to make it an "animal"...it is possible, but it would take Billions of years...did that help?

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#20    Hehe

Hehe

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 172 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005

Posted 23 November 2005 - 07:28 PM

Im talking about the time during which the plants evolved themselves, when animals werent even on the scene. Couldnt plants have evolved nervous systems together with animals. That would be a great evolutionary advantage.

Edited by Hehe, 23 November 2005 - 07:28 PM.


#21    Ourmoonlitsun

Ourmoonlitsun

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts
  • Joined:25 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 23 November 2005 - 07:53 PM

Quote


Because if it wasn't balanced, it wouldn't exist. The reason everything fits so well into its niche is because it's spent millions upon millions of years adapting to fit into it...evolution isn't a blink and you'll miss is process.

Yeah, look... the eco-system of any given area is going through a constant "give and take" adapting process with its inhabitants. There is a little room for variance and in that small room organisms are able to change. Those changes thus allow the eco-system as a whole to slightly change because all the eco-system is is a collection of ITS organisms. If something is not able to survive within that allowable area of change allowed by the eco-system, it won't. If I was born without lungs, I'd die. That simple. If I was born with one less finger, I could manage.

One time I met the Devil. I asked, "Do you have any other forms?"  The Devil replied, "Yeah... Martha Stewart." I stood in silence for a moment. Then I nodded and said, "Makes sense."

#22    KayEl

KayEl

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 506 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003

Posted 24 November 2005 - 04:53 AM

The arguments over evolution again! Sigh! wacko.gif
The fact that you inherit your traits from your parents is the very basis of evolution!


#23    Seraphina

Seraphina

    Voted Best Member 2005

  • Member
  • 7,133 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2003
  • Location:Paisley, Scotland

  • Everyone likes a smouldering and sexy glare from a diminutive scientist.

Posted 24 November 2005 - 02:36 PM

Quote

The fact that you inherit your traits from your parents is the very basis of evolution!


Exactly...or you could point at selective breeding in dogs, wherein various characteristics are seen to become more and more pronounced as they are selected for by the environment (in this case: man selecting instead of nature, but the principle is the same). This, over the course of only a few generations, has led to an incredible variety of breeds....imagine what would occur over the course of millions of years?

But the fact is, they just don't want to see it *shrugs*

Quote

Im talking about the time during which the plants evolved themselves, when animals werent even on the scene.


Probably because they didn't have to. Motility is another result of natural selection, where organisms had to move in order to survive given pre-existing organisms had already taken up so many of the available niches. A tree doesn't need to evolve towards motility because it's already perfectly at home in its current niche.

Posted Image

Apparantly, over on Exchristian.Net, they say that I'm "probably the smartest person" on UM....that is so cool...

#24    Hehe

Hehe

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 172 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005

Posted 24 November 2005 - 04:18 PM

Quote


Probably because they didn't have to. Motility is another result of natural selection, where organisms had to move in order to survive given pre-existing organisms had already taken up so many of the available niches. A tree doesn't need to evolve towards motility because it's already perfectly at home in its current niche.


Before there where trees. The first photosynthesizing organisms. Probably would have formed layers on the floor/rock/waterbed. Those at the bottom would probably die or phogacotize the surviving cells and develope into animals. But what if there was a mutation that lead to the production of mobile cells that could utilize sunlight and move?. Eventually these organisms would dominate over non-mobile organisms. Natural selection will remove the least mobile cells and eventually these cells might develope nervous systems. Did i miss anything?


#25    Xzenox

Xzenox

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • All the worlds a stage

Posted 24 November 2005 - 07:09 PM

Evolotion no solution its catchy dont ya think  w00t.gif


#26    Knothere

Knothere

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined:24 Nov 2005

Posted 24 November 2005 - 07:38 PM

Evolution is not a theory I can subscribe to in total becasue of one thing about about it that sticks in my craw...Gradual changes over time of species adaptations to their environment. This was the key premise of Darwin's theory, which evolutionist seem to ignore whenever resistence is met with what they say.

Now while it sounds all fine and good in theory, it is still theory as there exists no shred of empirical evidence in fossil record to exhibit this "gradual change". There is however, tons of evidence showing sudden extinction & out of nowhere appearences of new species with no available link between the so labeled "old" and "new", and even though they are similar, they are still VERY different. Show me the evolutionary path between a cheetah & a lion...If the change was gradual from where they branched off a common ancestor, wouldn't there be an ancestor somewhere down each branch of the 2 that are more similar to each other than they are today?

Adaptations & changes in controlled or isolated environments can indeed produce gradual change through mutation, and science can prove it without a doubt...But it still has yet to produce a new species without directly & unnaturally altering DNA...Let that thought sink in and bounce around a bit. If anything, science has proven natural selection cannot produce a "new" species as is exhibited in fossil record trhough gradual adaptation, but one can be produced with radical change to the DNA structure.

The problem is proving the large leaps, which evolutionists still can't explain in anyway other than, "We haven't found the evidence, but it's there somewhere and we'll find it!" Which is just like a religious zealot telling me "God is real, I don't have proof, but someday soon he'll show us all!". Both seem pretty much driven by faith. Makes me think prehaps evolutionism is becoming the new "religion" of the masses.

The theory is riddled with missing links when it comes to tying it all together with common ancestors. Period, dot, end of story. Some of it is plausible, and even makes sense...But there is still to much of it that doesn't make alot of sense when it comes to actual fossil record exhibiting this gradual change over time drum evolutionist continue to beat on.

Of course I understand that it is possible, and very likely, a segment of a particular species may very well be exposed to something that radically changes their offsrping...Thereby creating a new species, but it has yet to be identified, and that wouldn't fit into the theory of gradual adaptive change due to environment. Personally this is the tree science should be barking up, not that old tree Darwin led them to, that dog doesn't hunt & there is no racoon up that tree IMHO.

Do I believe evolution is fact not theory? No. Do I believe it is a piece of the puzzle? Yes. Do I believe a big part of explaining it is still missing? Yes.

Edited by Knothere, 24 November 2005 - 07:49 PM.

Today is the tomorrow you worried over yesterday.

#27    Seraphina

Seraphina

    Voted Best Member 2005

  • Member
  • 7,133 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2003
  • Location:Paisley, Scotland

  • Everyone likes a smouldering and sexy glare from a diminutive scientist.

Posted 24 November 2005 - 10:30 PM

Quote

But what if there was a mutation that lead to the production of mobile cells that could utilize sunlight and move? Eventually these organisms would dominate over non-mobile organisms.


And why would they do that? They sound like they'd end up as a prey item...they don't eat, so they're not really going to be consuming the same resources as an animal would. They probably just end up moving targets.

Quote

But it still has yet to produce a new species without directly & unnaturally altering DNA...Let that thought sink in and bounce around a bit.


I'll try saying it again - evolution isn't a blink and you'll miss it process. Of course science mankind hasn't managed to produce a new species through selectrive breeding, simply because to do so would take far more time than we've been doing it for. We're not talking a matter of hundreds of years, we're talking tens of thousands at the very least.



Posted Image

Apparantly, over on Exchristian.Net, they say that I'm "probably the smartest person" on UM....that is so cool...

#28    Knothere

Knothere

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined:24 Nov 2005

Posted 24 November 2005 - 10:57 PM

Quote


I'll try saying it again - evolution isn't a blink and you'll miss it process. Of course science mankind hasn't managed to produce a new species through selectrive breeding, simply because to do so would take far more time than we've been doing it for. We're not talking a matter of hundreds of years, we're talking tens of thousands at the very least.


And I'll try and say it again...It is a blink and you'll miss it process. Fossil record doesn't support it being gradual, but it certainly does have thousands of examples of species seeming popping up out of thin air with no gradual link to a common ancestor of their genus. Proponents of evolutionism certainly aren't willing to recognize the possibility that perhaps they are wrong, just as creationist aren't will to accept evolution.

btw - Science HAS managed to produce new speicies through gene splicing...Petroleum eating bacterium are produced in a lab with nothing similar to it in the wild unless we put it there. I said nothing of selective breeding, you did. I'm talking of an as of yet unidentified cause for rapid & obviously sporatic changes that create new species...And you're doggedly hanging onto century old theory that after a century still is theory.

I think perhaps an expansion of scope is in order by now.

Today is the tomorrow you worried over yesterday.

#29    Ourmoonlitsun

Ourmoonlitsun

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts
  • Joined:25 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 24 November 2005 - 11:12 PM

Quote


And I'll try and say it again...It is a blink and you'll miss it process. Fossil record doesn't support it being gradual, but it certainly does have thousands of examples of species seeming popping up out of thin air with no gradual link to a common ancestor of their genus. Proponents of evolutionism certainly aren't willing to recognize the possibility that perhaps they are wrong, just as creationist aren't will to accept evolution.

It depends on how "gradual" you want it to be. Fossil records do support and exhibit changes over any select period of time. Sometimes the mutations in an organism combined with the unpredictable nature of the environment in which it lives (curse the weather!) will force all but those that are able to readily adapt to die, thus causing the changes to be quick. There are so many factors at play that that is why they teach this stuff not just in one or two posts on the internet, but in multiple terms spread over years. The world is complex... believe it or not.

You can either learn it or say "God did it." One is easier, I admit.

One time I met the Devil. I asked, "Do you have any other forms?"  The Devil replied, "Yeah... Martha Stewart." I stood in silence for a moment. Then I nodded and said, "Makes sense."

#30    Knothere

Knothere

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined:24 Nov 2005

Posted 24 November 2005 - 11:36 PM

Quote


It depends on how "gradual" you want it to be. Fossil records do support and exhibit changes over any select period of time. Sometimes the mutations in an organism combined with the unpredictable nature of the environment in which it lives (curse the weather!) will force all but those that are able to readily adapt to die, thus causing the changes to be quick. There are so many factors at play that that is why they teach this stuff not just in one or two posts on the internet, but in multiple terms spread over years. The world is complex... believe it or not.

You can either learn it or say "God did it." One is easier, I admit.


Sorry, but gradual means what it does and really isn't subjective in it's  interpetation when you look at some or the radical changes fossil record does support. And once again, I'm not talking about selective breeding or adaptation, I'm talking large leaps in differences between species in a matter of a couple generations.

Oh, and i don't think the concepts of evolution I'm advocating are those of a simpleton, but those that require a little more thought. Never once implied the world wasn't complex. Matter of fact, I think it's complex enough to have conditions that we aren't even remotely aware concerning evolution and have yet to be discovered. Of course it's alot easier to just say that is what Darwin said.



Today is the tomorrow you worried over yesterday.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users