The Theory of Evolution

[TVAdict710]

dammit, another big word using person.

[mizzcharagigi]

all these SAT words i have to look up... hahaha

[Anonymouse]

Re: Must be a Creationist then...

Opponenets of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguements dont hold up as I will show you...

First things first:Many people view evolution as being a theory which it is, but many people also belive a theory is just a 'guess', however a theory is actually a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypothesis.

The theory is not very plausible. You make the ignorant assumption that because someone doesnt adhere to evolution they are some sort of literal Bible thumper creationist. That is not so and your assumption is unfounded. Evolutionists continually patch up their original theory and call on convoluted logic, couched in elegant and educated terminology and try to create an aura of science, changing volumes of text to hold on to an immutable theory.

Many creationists say that evolution is unscientific , becasue it is not testable or falsifiable. but this blanket of evolution ignores important distinctions that didive the field into at least two braod areas; microevolution & macroevolution. Even these days most creationists aknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory ( as in studies of cells, plants, and fruit flies) and in the field ) as in studies of evolving beak studies within birds). Natural Selection and other mechanisms such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization can all drive profound changes in populations over time.
The only solid way of disproving the theory of evoltuon is if superintellignet aliens or God himself appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth, but No one has yet produced such evidence.

No one is denying MICROEVOLUTION. Everyone knows that there are within species variation. Even the most bullheaded bible thumper will tell you. However to asser that MICROEVOLUTION leads to MACROEVOLUTION is a blanket assertion that lacks any and all evidence or empirical verification. It is simply asserted in the scientific world and believed. Evolution you see is a like class of faith yet evolutionists will coldly deny this. You seem to be arguing that evolution is already PROVEN without proving it and arguing a negative. Unless God or Aliens appear you say evolution is a fact? When was it established and proven that species change into more complex species and this was because of hapahazard random mutations? Mind you that most mutations that do occur in organisms are harmful. It is mathematically improbable for species to have evolved.

The acceptacne of evolution is a widely accpeted factual occurence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.

Really? Where has this been proven again I ask.

Also a key idea to note is that evolution does not teach that humans decended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

That was a joke I was pulling, I can't believe you took it literally.

The origin of life reamins very much a mysetry, but biochemists have learned about primitive nucleic acids , amino acids, and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for celular biochemistry. Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origian of life. Even if life on earth turned out to have a non-evolutionary origin ( for instance, if aliens intorducded the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

You better believe its a mystery, and for evolutionists to sit there and explain that they have all the answer and never ask anyquestions is the hallmark of ignorance and arrogance. How did the DNA system with all its complexities, come to be, in the first place? When and how did the cell create and incorporate ribosomes, endoplasmic reticula and the Golgi apparatus? Professor Murray Eden of MIT submitted sound observations of the mathematical improbability of evolution. By applying mathematical concepts it was deduced that there would be 10^325 possible protein combinations created through the genetic code, basedon the assumption that each protein contained 250 amino acids. It was further argued that the number of different proteins that ever existed was 10^52, which means a very small fraction of the available pool of protein possibilities.Instead of searching out randomly the proper combinations of protein chains that would create life, there must have been a mechanism in nature taht was able to focus rapidly on the infinitesmially small portion of all conceivable protein chains. the theory of evolution doesnt explain to us what this mechanism was nor how it functioned to perform a statistically improbable job. Surely you cannot argue with mathematical logic can you?

many creationists say that evoltuon is all chance and random, but that is not the case. natural Selection, the princicple known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving ' desirble' (adaptaive) features and elimating 'undesirable" (non-adaptive) ones.

So youre saying that evolution isn't really random ALL the time and that some of it is intelligent thought? Hmm you seem to be sounding more like a non evolutionist in that you contradict yourself. Futuyama, Gould and Dawkins wouldn't agree I guess.

I can literally go on for pages, but ll just conclude this ...The whole idea of 'intellignet desgin' which basicallly is what creaatinists belive that there has to and must of been an intelligence force above us that created life on earth. This offers very few answers...For example, when did a desgigning intelligence interven in lifes history ? By creating the first DNA ? the first cell ? the first human ? Believers and listeners of this idea are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituing their RELIGIOUS beliefs for SCIENTIFIC ideas. Evoltuion is doing the same with the riddle of how locing world took shape. Creationism on the other hand, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort. .

These are the questions evolutionists should answer. I'll have you know there is just about as much and maybe even more evidence to suggest Alien life forms gave us our knowledge and created us than there is for evolution. And what can you go on for pages about? You haven't really presented and undeniable solid argument supporting evolution other than the usual banter.

most arguements that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution. Today, the battle of this argumenet has been won everywhere except in the public imagination. What it all comes down to folks is this ...... people who argue agaisnt evolution are very religious and CAn not accept the fact that we simply evolved as primates through antural selection and speciaition. The arguments you propse are flat out derived from ignorance, THERE IS MY FRIEND A REASON WHY evolution is taught in class....

What evidence do you have of these assertions? I am arguing against evolution and I am not religious. This proves you wrong and shows you are making invalid unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions for information you do not possess and in essence showing how evolutionists think, without being scientific and using imagination and making unsubstantiated assertion. With the logic you are using now in assuming that all those who question evolution are religious, I can see how you have "proven evolution". Up top you even argued that evolution was an already established fact by using mental gymnastics and in essence using reverse logic by stating evolution is a proven fact and we have to disprove it. How can one prove a negative? This begs the question. You can go on for pages of no substance and I can cite examples of fossil fraud like Java Man. Have you even heard of Haldane's Dilemma?

Also....Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. All these ideas an concepts have been scientifically tested where as Your beliefs simply can not even be tested becasue they do not EXIST. So to say that evolution is non-scientific, but the mysterious creation of humans on earth is , is simply ignorant. I accpet the fact of God and a creator, but the facts of evolution cannot be erased. IF it was ever proven that there wasnt a God or higher power, 80% of this world would lose their minds and kill them selves, religion needs to stay in religion and not be confused and mixed up with science.

Oh yuppeeee you have found barely one intermediate that even now is dubious and has been rumored to be a work of fiction like that of Java Man, or Piltdown Man, or Nebraska Man. While you did a great copy and paste job you did nothing to prove how evolution is a plausible theory that shouldn't be discarded.

[TVAdict710]

dammit man dont u have a job or school to go to?

[Anonymouse]

no

[TVAdict710]

oh. well, that explains a lot.

[Anonymouse]

TTT.

CkBejug, please offer a rebuttal.

[jahannam]

I'm not ckbejug... but I wanna throw in my 2 cents...since I wasn't around when this thread was born...
so I'm taking this Archaeology class... and it's a nice coincidence...
we just spent SO much time talking and seeing videos about Evolution last week!
it's like I care less how the first man was brought to life, really...
but I mean... I definitely refuse to believe (and I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone here), that "God" blew some air and turned whatever into Adam???
lol anyway
according to archaeological finds, it's crystal clear...
first of all ... what dagchild has pointed out is a pretty common mistake and it's important that we clarify it... we didn't "come" from apes... humans and apes SHARE ancestors... so somewhere down the line... the line splits into humans... and apes...
anyway
back to the finds...
they not only have found full body skeletons and skulls of each of the "beings" down the line until it's evolved to homo sapien sapiens (us), but they're also working on discovering what kind of a life these beings led, what kind of animals threatened their lives at a particular time, how they hunted, and ate... all through finding stone tools they actually sharpened and used, through their bones and how they suggest what kind of a diet they had...which kind started walking like US... on 2 feet, with their hands free to carry food... the skulls and how the brain size kept getting larger and larger...
at some point, they even have proofs about Lucy's kind being scavengers instead of hunters...how?
they've found animal bones that have been opened by stone tools (microscopic searches on the scratches on the bones prove that) and the marrow in them has been eaten by "Lucies" since other animals have finished the actual meat on the dead animal's body!
anyway... all I'm suggesting is that Archaeology and carbon dating ... science overall has come a long way...
give it a couple of more decades... Evolution is not gonna be a mere "theory"...

[Anonymouse]

I'm not ckbejug... but I wanna throw in my 2 cents...since I wasn't around when this thread was born...
so I'm taking this Archaeology class... and it's a nice coincidence...
we just spent SO much time talking and seeing videos about Evolution last week!
it's like I care less how the first man was brought to life, really...
but I mean... I definitely refuse to believe (and I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone here), that "God" blew some air and turned whatever into Adam???
lol anyway
according to archaeological finds, it's crystal clear...
first of all ... what dagchild has pointed out is a pretty common mistake and it's important that we clarify it... we didn't "come" from apes... humans and apes SHARE ancestors... so somewhere down the line... the line splits into humans... and apes...
anyway
back to the finds...
they not only have found full body skeletons and skulls of each of the "beings" down the line until it's evolved to homo sapien sapiens (us), but they're also working on discovering what kind of a life these beings led, what kind of animals threatened their lives at a particular time, how they hunted, and ate... all through finding stone tools they actually sharpened and used, through their bones and how they suggest what kind of a diet they had...which kind started walking like US... on 2 feet, with their hands free to carry food... the skulls and how the brain size kept getting larger and larger...
at some point, they even have proofs about Lucy's kind being scavengers instead of hunters...how?
they've found animal bones that have been opened by stone tools (microscopic searches on the scratches on the bones prove that) and the marrow in them has been eaten by "Lucies" since other animals have finished the actual meat on the dead animal's body!
anyway... all I'm suggesting is that Archaeology and carbon dating ... science overall has come a long way...
give it a couple of more decades... Evolution is not gonna be a mere "theory"...

That doesn't prove how evolution exists.

Basically you are repeating the same party line of Darwinists.

We found fossil A then we found fossil B. Fossil B is different from fossil A so therefore it MUST have evolved.

It has always been stated, never has it been proven.

[jahannam]

first of all, the difference between fossil A and fossil B is so insignificant, that you need a phD in Anatomy to be able to tell...
second of all, the found fossils have been proven to exist at a certain time. There's a reason why homo Habilis skeletons are all some millions of years old, and then they STOP appearing... and homo erectus start without overlapping... and then THEY stop and homo sapiens start...and then homo sapien sapiens etc. etc.
what YOU're suggesting is...
"God created each of those homos and then got rid of them respectfully"???
I guess that makes sense too since God also got Mariam Asdvadzadzin Pregnant???? lol anywayyy