There's enough against- religion threads on this forum, so i might as well put an against- evolution thread up

first off, the big bang: how can you say everything you see came from a small speck of dust smaller than this period. ? i know a couple of you would say you need lots and lots of energy, but where would you get this energy from? according to the law of conservation of energy, "energy can not be creating nor destryoed." in a chemical reaction, energy is never created nor destroyed, rather, it's used up to create the new substance, then released as one form or another; we humans can detect energy as heat, but there can be other forms. back on subject, this speck was in a realm of nothingness, so where did the energy come from?

next, it has been proven time and time again that LIFE CAN NOT COME FROM NONLIVING MATTER. this theory is called biogenesis, and is false. Louis Pateur proved this. and, according to evolution, lighting struck the ocean's waters, and amino acids, the basis of DNA, was created. DNA is too complex to have been created by chance. think about it: in DNA, each and every segment of it controls what you look like, how youll function, if youll be deformed, if you'll even live orn not beyond birth, etc. if just ONE crucial part of this DNA is screwed up, the whole thing's screwed up, and the organism can't live. if this happened by chance, as said in evolution, the odds would be way too high for none of the crucial parts to not be screwed up. still with me? good

third, even the simplest of bacteria are too complex to be made by chance! have you seen the inside of a bacteria lately? take a look:


this is the most primitive they get, and can you tell me that was created by chance? sure, it looks simple, but the odds of some lightning striking, creating amino acids, making organic matter, it all coming together to form that is very unlikely!

evolution states that the changes came from mutations, from adaptation or maybe from birth defects. the only problem: gene mutations are recessive genes! which means it requires two recessive genes to make a dominant gene. lets use a pre- giraffe, with a small neck, about the size of a horse, for this example. let's say it had an offspring with a bigger neck from a mutation, since wild animals can not get obese for their kind, or be large, like humans or domesticated animals. this offspring would have to mate with another one with that same mutation for it to become a dominant trait. this would be very unlikely in the wild.
of course, the offspring of the offspring with the mutation could pass his genes and his offspring become carriers, which means they have the gene but dont show any signs of it. this couldve been how stuff was passed on by evolution. and as more and more mutations of this kind came around, the necks got a little longer each generation. but, there's a problem! their necks would be too long so they cant eat smaller plants, but too small to eat the plants higher up.

lastly, can you really look at all the complex life on this earth and say that chance made it all? it's a hard thing to say yes too, because of the more complex things such as a bat's sonar, a bug's multilensed eyes, a dolphin's sonar system, a bird's hollow bone system, to help them weigh less, a fish's gill system, our different bodily systems(respiratory, circulatory, etc.), and much more. can you really say "bacteria HAPPENED to become multicellular bacteria which HAPPENED to become primitive ocean life which HAPPENED to become complex fish which HAPPENED to sprout legs and grow lungs which HAPPENED to become reptiles which HAPPENED to become complex reptiles known as dinosaurs and small mammals which the dinosaurs died out and the mammals(read: rat- like creatures) HAPPENED to become complex mammals which HAPPENED to become all this complex life you see today? hard to fathom for me

i know all you can probably tear this arguement up, and id like it if you tried, i made this because 1) evolution is a theory which sounds almost ridiculous, but reasonable enough for scientists to accept it, and 2) because there's enough religion bashing threads on this forum. thanks for your time!

Speculations are fun...


You can't prove or dissprove evolution or creationalism...

There are tons of posts about this... none ever came to a deffinite answer.

check out these sites

http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/holland.GAIntro.htm
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

here is another site for you to look over:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

evo is a big topic. if you want to discuss details you should focus on one 'branch' at a time.

you should also separate the bb into another thread as it is an entirely separate topic.

First off, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution.



So maybe it wasnt created?



Need I say more?



How can something like that be proven in the first place? Its like saying in the past that its been proven that cars are impossible because of some failed attempts to create one.

Nonetheless, it HAS been proven that organic matter can come from nonliving matter.



Oh, its biogenesis huh? AND its false? Then that means that you shouldnt be here right now...

(Wonders if poster will understand...)



Evolution does not say that at all. Not even abiogenesis says this!



With what reasoning did you arrive to that conclusion? There are many complex molecules that are created naturally...



Wrong, but I expected you to be wrong once again. There are many diseases caused by abnormalities in the DNA (compared to the normal human) in which the person still survives. However, as evolution shows, those that cause problems are usually filtered out as much as possible (at least, they were in the past) when survival of the fittest was something important. Just to let you know, your DNA is different from my DNA... some muscular guys DNA is different from some skinny guys DNA, its all different... but both of them survive... Its not like only one combination permits the being to live.



How high would the odds be? Those with DNA that cause defects and deficiencies would die and the fittest (those with DNA which gives them advantages) survive... those advantages then become the norm.



On what basis do you make that conclusion?



Given time, its very likely. First of all, it could very well not be random... just like Water is not a random combination of elements, it is a specific one, H2O. It can be no other way.

Now, let me address the random scenario. Say theres a 1 in 1000000000 chance that it happens. Now, the event causing it happen 1000000000000000 times... how likely is it that life spawns now?



Whoah! First of all, no, gene mutations arent only recessive genes. Second of all, it doesnt require two recessive genes to make a dominant gene... it takes two recessive genes to make the recessive trait appear.



Not really. Take codominance for example. The long neck one breeds with a short neck one, the two dominant genes combine to form a third phenotype. Or, simply, the one with the long neck takes dominance over that of the short neck.



Which can once again get passed down and become the phenotype of the offspring.



First of all, since when can giraffes not eat grass on the ground? I thought they could.

Second of all, its not like the neck would necessairly gradually extend. Take people born with a sixth finger. Does the finger just suddenly appear in a generation, or does it gradually appear, starting from a small stub in one generation and getting bigger from there?



Yes, its definitly possible. Also, as I said above, its quite possible and even likely that its not up to chance...

There. Apreciate this post cuz I lost 30 min typing it out and I still have to complete a project.

Stellar, you've covered that quite well. Someone like me will appreciate (and I do) the time you've taken to point out what should've been obvious with some educated reasoning

I'll just add a little to hopefully drive the point home...


not exactly dust (but we get what you mean), equally as strongly how can you say that everything was created as it is stated in religious writings (and without the least bit of evidence!) ? At least we have tons of compelling evidence for our (evolutionary) claims.


DNA is complex now - it has taken millions upon millions of years to get this complex - unfortunately we don't and won't have the DNA(?) structure of the first single-celled organisms but there is clear evidence and proof that ARCHAEA was such first organism that in fact turned our non-breathable (mostly carbon dioxide) atmosphere into breathable one (mostly oxygen) - fossils of these have been found and date back something like billion years (or more) - CARBON DATING doesn't lie (unless you have proof otherwise )


ditto as above - they wouldn't have been this complex millions of years ago


the vegetation they were eating would be evolving in height too in competition with the giraffes - that's why some (plants) have grown thorns & giraffes have equally evolved long tongues and long eyelashes to stop the thorns poking their eyes out

just as a side note, what intrigues me is how plants evolve mechanism to prevent predators (to a degree) - it seems like they sense something - oooh hang on, I get it EVOLUTION - survival of the fittest ie. the thorny plant would survive longer & hence would flourish compared to the ones that didn't (when it comes to giraffes) - now there are other new trade-offs, evolution never ceases to amaze me


yep, yep, yep - in small steps over millenia it is now seen as very complex but it wasn't always so

it is co-evolution. the environment and the animal evolve together. the flaw of darwinism is it placed all the emphasis on the animal/organism.

I wish I had a dime for everyone of these threads that have popped up over the years...

Same stuff over and over and over and over and over and over and over again...

With all that repetition, you'd think that someone would try to learn something new, but that so rarely happens. They start out structured and civil and end like:

Page 427: (137,934,001 Views)

Poster 1 "...You are an stupid head booger face who believes in magic..."

Poster 2 "...So what, at least I won't spend eternity burning in hell you heathen poopy breath..."

Poster 1 "Hippocrite..."

Poster 2 "...Hell bound descendant of a monkey..."

Poster 1 "...Zealot Nazi..."

Poster 2 "...fascist pagan..."

Poster 1 "...you are such a poopyface magic believer..."

Poster 2 "... you are Satans love muffin..."

...and then the thread is closed by a Mod who just can't stop rolling their eyes...

Thanks Hyperactive

With regard to the Archaea I mentioned (it was a stab in the dark from something I read a couple of years ago). We have found these alive and well in extreme conditions. Like Bacteria and Eucarya they evolved from a common ancestor - even simpler life(?). The structures of the cells(?) are also quite different - not so hard to believe evolution now is it - just G! 'Archaea' - wikipedia def. is a good start

Perhaps God put these strange organisms here too, but found no use for them - NOOOOOT. Any references in the bible? (I'd be surprised if there was - and I don't want any cryptic writing that can be taken million & 1 ways )

just missed Fluffybunny post...oh well...hopefully it won't get to a slinging-match (I don't intend it to )

As Fluff suggested, a Moderator's place is not to question or guide the discourse, rather to adjudicate the civility of it. Futherance of a civil thread leads to a furtherance of knowledge. Such is the power and growth of U.E.

I actually like that one LOL

ALIVE! THE RACE TO CREATE LIFE FROM SCRATCH

His team is attempting what no one else has done before: to create a new form of living being from non-living chemicals in the lab.

Breathing the spark of life into inanimate matter was once regarded as a
divine prerogative. But now several serious and well-funded research groups
are working hard on doing it themselves. If one of them succeeds, the world
will have met alien life just as surely as if we had encountered it on Mars or
Europa.

That first alien meeting will help scientists get a better handle on what
life really is, how it began, what it means to be alive and even whether there
are degrees of "aliveness". "We want to demonstrate what the heck life is by
constructing it," says Packard's business partner and colleague Steen
Rasmussen, a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. "If
we do that, we're going to have a very big party.

The first team that does it is going to get the Nobel prize."

IF you would like to read it all and I suggest that you do, please go here http://www.protolife.net/news/press_articl...entistFeb05.pdf

We will know soon

Yep yep, watch em squirm...or hoax like the Archeoraptor.

Some interesting reading, whoa182, but I think they are a bit ambitious.
Nature has already been through this and it found the best way to spawn life.
I agree with this...

...10, 20 or 30 years...perhaps we'll see a synthetic form of life but, in my opinion it won't be as useful as they claim (perhaps a million years will make it useful - just like our evolution).

And for the creationists, this is what a Catholic Theologian, John Haught had to say "We are fully a part of nature, and as natural beings who are living and creating a synthetic life, we are in a sense life creating more life, which is what's been going on in evolution for the last 4 billion years now" ...how ironic

Tainted Donuts, as you can see, you have a lot of misconceptions concerning evolution, and it is evident that your education, or at least your learning, has been faulty at times. I invite you, if you truly do wish to learn about what it is that you so vehemently oppose, to ask and learn about what evolution truly is.

The following thread was begun for the purpose of educating people about evolution. It isn't a debate thread, however. If you have a question, say, for instance, why isn't the Big Bang considered evolution, or why we are not descended from monkeys, then you can feel free to ask it and receive an answer without being flamed for your lack of knowledge.

Proof of Evolution

I encourage you to ask questions, as making blanket statements such as these reflect badly on your credibility; not so much your point of view, but rather how easily you are led to follow arguments that are simply not so.

The problem with discussing this is that it's fairly complex science and most contributors will have little if any understanding of the various theories.

Personally, I find Kauffman's Autocatalytic Set theory rather compelling

Yes, kind of like the understanding of the OTHER SIDE of the story. People like myself must constantly repeat themsleves as others don't know the full story and/or are unwilling to listen open-mindedly.

The difference between my theory (including Enoch's account) and Darwin's, or any other Evolutionist's theory is that not only is there evidence to back it up, it follows in a long long line of continuity, and forms a big picture. It gives answers, not more questions like Evolution, but that in itself seems to be the problem for some people. Someone once said on here 'if you have all the answers what else is there to learn'. If you DON'T have the answers how can you possibly learn about anything? That's like trying to learn algebra without being about to add 2 + 2.

Answers to what? What field of science could be based on your theory? What predictions could be made with it that would affect the farming, agricultural, or anything having to do with the biological world?

In short, of what use is your theory other than for you to claim "I'm right!"?

Here's one, it makes furture predictions. It predicted global warming. It specifically says, in the ULTIMATE END, not in his generation, or even the flood 'end' that 'Note how the seasons never change, in the ultimate end, they will change' and 'mountains (or ice glaciers) will melt like candlewax). Just the other night Tony Blair was talking with Bush about the fact that, in these exact words, the seasons are CHANGING. This was foretold at LEAST 8000 years ago, or more.

Even having said that, whether it was an end or not, can man really change global warming? No. One day it's there's too many holes in the ozone layer, the next there's not enough, and THAT'S the reason for global warming because it's keeping too much slar heat in. No matter what the case was, what's happening now is inevitable, and even if science, evolution, or religion pinpointed what it really was that's causing it, can you stop it? Can anyone REALLY stop it?

However, I'm not about to say that's the end of the world, mankind will go on, but the direction it's heading in, the utopian world without religion, is a place of no return, and it's one you will get. You get your dream, and it turns into a nightmare.

Jeeez, both of you, Essan + Ashley, take a step back, look at the question, look at your responses and think hard. Perhaps your arguments in other threads have clouded the question/original-post at hand

The question is 'Evolution, can you prove it exists?'. - ooops, just saw you arguing in another thread (maybe I'll join it ), well I'll still go on with my original spark...

wikipedia definition (perhaps not the best but anyways)...


Quite frankly, you cannot prove jack with a theory. We're talking about proof/evidence that suggests that evolution exists - period. I don't need to base or reference any one said THEORY just lay out some evidence upon which various 'evolution' theories are based anyway. I don't even need to go into those at this stage - why make life hard for myself.
Essan, the theory you reference (from what I read) is pre-occupied with HOW life began - and it's a THEORY that stops very short of proving how it did - apart from some inconclusive experiments. Just like any other theory (including Enoch's account) it may or may not be right - you're not going to prove anything if there's any doubt. either of you

Stellar + I + others have simply replied to the original post. IF TaintedDoughnuts comes back with 'where's your proof/evidence?', I'm sure we can muster enough collective power to provide lots and lots of references to scientific studies/research/findings etc. to overload Doughnut's nut. It's just we don't need to at this stage and theories will be the least of our worries.

I rest my case...peace

You're quite right

I love these topics. The people trying to disprove evolution don't even seem to have basic knowledge of the theory. There wasn't just some bang, and low and behold, a perfect world.

Then there's the religious types like Ashley who truly believe the bible is actual evidence of the existance of God.



Exactly WHAT evidence is there to back it up?
Furthermore, your theory also poses many new questions, not just answers.

I'm too tired to write anymore, so I'll just watch everyone b**** at each other for a while.

the funniest thing is that it doesnt have to be disproven. it hasnt even been proven yet. all science claims is that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it. The real difference is that science will always consider a new theory.

Which is such an effective verification system that belief-based ideologies are threatened enough to refuse to even acknowledge that any proof exists for scientifically valid theories, in fear that their own systems might be toppled because of it.

Indeed, it's quite probable that current evolutionary theory is not entirely correct and over time it will be gradually refined as fresh evidence comes to light.

Of course, proving something which takes place over 100s of thousands of years is not easy, other than by analogy or experiment. Even if it was proved it was possible - say by performing sufficent mutations of fruit flies so that a completely new genus of fly was created - it still wouldn't prove such things occur outside of a laboratory, just that they could....

What we can say is that evolution is the best explanation at present for the evidence available to us - the variety of species and the fossil record.

Haha!
Just like to point out that I love that statement. Very astute observation.
I'll be sure to quote that one often ^^

I find it amusing that many of these people belive that it is still the original writings of Darwin that make up all of evolutionary theory.

All this talk about theories - there isn't even any need for them

All evolution has to prove is that life/organisms/animals/plants have adapted by changing their traits over a period of time.


what makes you think, ahemm, what evidence do you have that it hasn't been proven? When evidence supports something, whatever it supports (even if it's just parts of other THEORIES - and as said we don't need to go into theories - the theories themselves don't prove anything) is EVIDENTLY correct.

What we're supporting (in your own terms) is that life has adapted and changed over the millenia - simple, no?

The evidence is right in front of you EVERY DAY. No offence to anyone & none is intended, but why do you think we have different races (african, african-american, caucasian, asian etc. etc.) the answer is very simple and is starring you right in the face - yet you don't recognise it. People have adapted and changed their traits! Or did your God actually create multiple Adams & Eves to accommodate this? Any evidence in religious writtings? Once again I must stress that I do not fall for heresay & cryptic writings that could be taken million & 1 ways - as any religious writings often do. I have more fun reading horoscopes - it's more entertaining & it often relates more.

Edited: Others have posted in between - not sure if my response is still on-the-ball, we'll see I guess...

i have no evidence to support my claim that evolution hasn't been proven, except of course, the fact that it remains a theory.

Of course it remains a theory. It will always remain a theory, and it will never be able to be a proven fact. No theory, not the theory of gravity, not the theory of light, not the theory electricity, no theory will be anything other than a theory, which is why reaching the level of theory is considered to be the closest step to being a scientific fact possible.

Here's a question for you: Why will no theory ever be considered scientific fact? Why will scientists always refuse to refer to them as anything other than theories? Here's a few hints: Karl Popper. major pre-requisite of scientific methodology (without which no theory can ever be called scientific).

I tend to disagree. Evolution is not a theory - the HOW and WHY evolution happens IS a theory but it has only come about because of the evidence uncovered (WHEN & WHAT & WHERE ).
Evolution is a very simple and blatantly obvious fact - even blind/disabled people adapt/change their traits according to their surroundings and their capabilities. If you want proof just ask one of them - they'll give it to you first-hand and if you claim that they don't, you'll get their hand in your face - and they've adapted to deliver the goods. The changing of one's life to adapt to their surroundings goes on every day - they're just so subtle and transparent to us that we don't even realise it.

thats a very valid point ai, evolution is an obvious fact when looked upon in that respect

yeah i know, i took that class a couple years ago so my info might be a little outdated, and apparently my teacher didnt believe in evo either

That...isn't as unusual as I wish it would be...

can you prove that it doesnt exist

prove what does not exist?



whatever 'it' is, can you prove 'it' exists?

Can you give me a reason why "mountains" should be changed to "ice glaciers"?



Depends on many things. Cause, technology available, funds available...



What do you mean?



So does gravity.

stellar:

you just reminded me of an old signature:

i wonder if those that only believe micro evo to be true also only believe micro gravity to be true.

Neo-Darwinism has always made sense to me .

I thinks, TaintedDoughnuts has somehwat sidestepped the issue - does not surprise me a bit. There's answers to each of the issues he presented but I see no real recourse. One reason could be that THERE IS NO RECOURSE. You cannot argue with facts - unless of course you argue RELIGION - somewhere, somehow, sometime with somethings IN SOME-TAINTED-REALITY (to relate to TaintedDoughnhuts)

ai: now you know the secret to this section! that is why i don't make lengthy posts, but refer to sites (even though i doubt the sites get visited...).

"you can not convince a 4 year old santa claus does not exist if they have convinced him/herself that santa does indeed exist". too bad so many never....

All I am saying is that I think we should resist the urge to label things as fact. Remember how many “facts” have been dismissed with advances science. Everyone wants so bad to have the answer, it blinds them. I agree that all current evidence, analyzed using our current techniques and current understanding of such, supports evolution. Personally, I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it occurs, if that is in question. However, I will consider other ideas, because as we gain a better understanding of the universe, we see more, and the more we see, the better understanding we have. And it is not always a former nobel prize winner that comes to understand something first. It might be one of you, so I like to hear everyones thoughts.

People who understand what a scientific theory is do not use the word fact in reference to them. The only people who think that scientists think theories are facts are people with little knowledge of scientific methodology.

indeed.

somewhere along the way the two sets of definitions formed.

so now we have scientific theory, hypothesis.
and we have 'layman' theory.
the layman theory is most like the scientific hypothesis.

and all this without dealing with the difference between probabilities and absolutes!

It's a theory yes, but there are quite a number of things that make up the theory. its not just someone deciding that "this sounds like it could of happend...I'll call it evolution"

I have books here that are something like 1500 pages on cell biology and dedicated evolution books. Its ******* HUGE ! there is so much detail that its hard to take in. the evidence is overwhelming.

Wow, it must be true then.

I have books here that are something like 1000 pages (ok, you beat me on this one ) on Church history and doctrine, and dedicated theology books. Its ******* HUGE ! there is so much detail its hard to take in. the evidence is overwhelming.

Wow, it must be true then, religion really does exist!

It dosen't however, prove that the scriptures are anything more than fiction or a poor account of ancient history.

First of all, in my many posts I've gone through (and that isn't the entirety of it, I only post what's relevant) the many avenues of evidence there is to back up my theory, from historical Egypt, to dinosaurs, their foretold extincetion etc etc etc. I've also pointed out that no matter WHAT you think of the book, the fact that it's talking about these creatures, their eating habits, effects on humanity, how they came to be, and their eventual exinction BEFORE dinosaurs were discovered is evidence in itself. They couldn't have written about something they shouldn't have known about unless they were THERE. Then there's the fact that planets which weren't even discovered then were named, described in color, and even properties, IN ORDER. etc etc etc.

As for God creating multiple races, yes, He did, and that's also in the Bible. On top of that is the fact that, like I said in other posts, the many vaired races we have now are a result of MICRO-evolution through climate conditions, and inter-racial mixing. That is not in any way related to macro-evolution. As for reading your horoscope, go right ahead. You do realize though that God OWNS astrology. The 8th and 9th Heavens, in space, the Firmanent of Heaven, are the Zodiac signs/houses, and it's phsyical location is THE zodiac belt. That and, God specifically said that He made the horoscope for 'every newborn child' and the fallen angels of Enoch gave astrology out as one of their 'secrets of Heaven', which became part of their incrimintion.

As for mountains being ice glaciers, there were only so many words 8000 years ago, and seeing as it's talking about global warming and climate change, ice glaciers....being a form of 'moutain' made of ice, would be more fitting. Then again, maybe it is LITERAL mountains. When the Earth turns into an inferno not too far into the future, apparently, according to science, mountains WILL literally melt.

Now, as for theories, Evolution, if it DIDN'T get passed off as fact continuously and shoved down people's throats as 'fact' when it IS just a current theory wouldn't be such a problem. If it even looked into some of the alternate evidence out there and kept more of an open mind for future evidence, even it it proved it's original theory wrong, it may not cause so many problems. It has become exactly what those who follow it say they are against.

Once upon a time science (which was originally about OBSERVING) didn't claim to have all the answers, and, didn't conflict with religion, accepting the possibility, even if some did not accept it.

no one is shoving anything as fact except those shoving ancient mythologies as absolute facts!

No it's not Nowhere does it specify that God created Chinamen and Scandinavians, Eskimos and Pygmys.....



In other words, you totally changed the meaning, on a whim, to suit your purposes!



This is what you fail to understand: Science is all about looking at the evidence, and changing your theory as new evidence comes to light.

Creationism is all about sticking religiously (pun!) to something written over 2,000 years ago and ignoring all subsequent evidence.

It's be like us learning geography or history using only book written in 500BC