Evolution Bashing Thread

Fair enough. I suppose I have only been telling you the same thing over and over. I'll take it down even further.


And this is all your opinion. You state it as fact, but it isn't. This is your belief, so stop reposting and reposting it like it's a fact. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't care what you believe, but we aren't talking about belief here. We're talking about fact and how science applies to the technical aspects of this debate. I could care less how it all started. AikiMac has done an excellent job of separating that part from the scientific discussion, so let's keep it separate. This is about the process by which things change and adapt. Let's stick to that.

AikiMac, mutation occurs with subtle changes in cellular DNA. When they replicate while creating new cells, the changes in the DNA cause the newly created cells to behave differently than before. They replicate at a different rate, organize themselves differently, or perform new or different functions. In the case of eyes, a random mutation could have caused a skin cell to mutate and be more sensitive to heat than normal skin cells. This increased sensitivity to heat may have helped a creature survive better than it's peers, so its chances of procreating and passing on that genetic change are increased. As it passes it on, eventually, another mutation in further generations could produce an even more sensitive skin cell. As these skin cells divide and replicate, they become more and more numerous, until a functional cluster of cells provides a centralized location for this newly hightened sense. As generations pass, and the animals with more sensitive sensors live longer and breed more than their peers, the mutation now becomes the norm. This carries on with each stage of developement, giving the creatures hundreds of thousands of generations after the first few sensitized creatures roughly developed eyes.

Basically, the change comes from mutations. Mutations come from subtle differences in DNA coding. These differences cause the cells to deveop differently and provide new or different functions. These functions cause animals to be either better or worse at survival. The animals that are better at survival pass on their new DNA, while the less successful are culled. Eventually, small successes build on small successes, and whole organs can be developed.
 
Evolution is not "made up". Do you think thousands of people spend their lives studying it without any real basis? The "theory" (more factual than theory in my eyes) is backed up by a huge volume of scientific evidence. The large majority of opinions otherwise are usually perpetuated by people who are un-educated in that they are poorly read or don't understand it properly, or they are biased because of certain beliefs. You seem to fit into the former, mate. Yes, human minds are flawed and I doubt we will ever be able to understand the whole picture. However, there are many theories such as the one of time being a dimension that could explain where the universe originated, which are frankly much more likely than a "creator". Again, I pose the question, who created the creator? If he is "eternal", then why can't the universe be so?
 
Not my opinion only, but the opinion of many
and whose to say it is not a fact, where you there when it all happened
and doesnt' science go hand in hand with belief....because if there wasn't belief in what evolution teaches....then why is that "belief " out there


I'm just making a point that science is flawed coming from human minds, and also that there are things that science just cant and may never be able to explain
 
Good thought??? but then that leads me to ask where did life come from....and human beings, or did life and humans also always existed and are eternal as well ( eternal as in a whole, because we know that we die, but I'm talking about the human race, being eternal as well, and always was and aways will be and does not have a creator)
 
Funny. I say the same thing about religion sometimes. Look, aikiMac is right. Neither of us were there when it started, and none of us know the pure truth of this. What I'm trying to do is keep this discussion relevant by keeping it centered on scientific grounds. Your faith in something means nothing to anyone but you, and it certainly doesn't prove anything to me. If you want to make your case, you will need to actually make one, instead of insisting on what you believe in, over and over again like a broken record. The difference between our points and yours are that ours have substance behind them, while yours are made with faith. Remember wayofthedragon, belief statements prove nothing but the faith of the author.
 
I believe in God and a creator, but I am a scientist and a geologist. I have difficulty with you biased statement that evolution 'made up'.

Of course scientist have flaws. I am not sure what you point is because all people do. Science is constantly changing and learning. There are methods and procedures to correct errors. The 'Creation Science' advocates do not change so there errors remain firmly in place.
 
The big bang has been supported by creationist and evolutionists as a real event in the forming of the universe. From the scientists perspective what happened before, why? and if? are not questions for the scientific method and should not influence our understanding of the evolution of the universe since that time. Belief in a creator or source is an independent decision on the part of the scientists.
 
THANK YOU RABBIT! I mean that! You've made a point! Dirt contains some essentials to JUMP START LIFE! They assumed correctly (they people of "1.0 millions years"), that life could have come from dirt. And in fact research and yes K_COFFIN that 11 grade biology article talks dirt particles containing the ability to create life. The weird part about it is, human skin contains such proteins and minerals found in dirt; and its not just humans that contain such "dirt particles" every living creature contain them with in their bodies!

Think about it. Proteins build muscle and Minerals an inorganic element, such as calcium, iron, potassium, sodium, or zinc, that is essential to the nutrition of humans, animals, and plants. If plants transfer such materials to animals (when eaten) and animals transfer such materials to humans (even vegetables)


Also, K_Coffin:

In all this mix of events, that article may point out energy transfer. Energy transfer between dirt particles is a step in creating life. How does this prove a form of a God or Higher Being? If evolution is a main reason for life, it would be normal to see evolution happening like this:



You would see body parts all over the place, and aikimac makes a point of that!

And Kimpatsu:

I think you told me things doesn't have an label "intelligent design" attach to it; things just happen (if not, I was just making that up.)

Evolution all in itself, is not fortified! The way evolution sounds its like a factory full of robots (no one knows where it came from or why its there) robots that build living creates that can't reproduce, why can't they reproduce? Well, the robots will always keep building, so there is no need for the creatures to reproduce; they, the robots, are the source of life. Oh, also in the they're not thinking.

Reproduction is an intelligent design of living thing, by chance evolution could have cause reproduction. If evolution continues to cause life and with living creatures reproducing, there would be big population. (thats if you speed on the process.)

So even after humans have evolved, more humans are still evolving. Even, now if humans are evolving into to be faster, stronger, and I hope for the fact smarter. Yet, in my mind dolphins haven't caught up to walking on land even to date.

I'm rambling now, but now I question the theory of evolution "Does evolution have no end??"

Back to K_Coffin:

Do you think energy transfer just occurs in dirt by itself? Thats like telling me a lightbulb can light up without being screwed into a electrical socket.
If transfer did occur naturally, it would be an observable event. It wouldn't even be a mystery to us. So, someone put the lightbulb into the socket and flipped the switch to cause life to occur! Because putting the lightbulb into the socket was a step to make the lightbulb shine. (I think I'm implying a "God")
 
Lightning....

Abiotic Production of Organic Molecules

The classic experiment demonstrating the mechanisms by which inorganic elements could combine to form the precursors of organic chemicals was the 1950 experiment by Stanley Miller. He undertook experiments designed to find out how lightning--reproduced by repeated electric discharges--might have affected the primitive earth atmosphere. He discharged an electric spark into a mixture thought to resemble the primordial composition of the atmosphere. In a water receptacle, designed to model an ancient ocean, amino acids appeared. Amino acids are widely regarded as the building blocks of life.

Courtesy of http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm
 
Right, back again. Thank you Yoda for that post detailing credible research on spontaneous generation.

Yama, I'm not sure how this isn't getting across to you, but I'll try again.
The science you have quoted proves nothing. It is irrelevant to your point. You are quoting basic laws of science, and well known constants (ie. How minerals work in biochemistry) and passing them off as pseudoscientific evidence to prove your point. First off - The common composition of human cells and dirt? Take a look at the periodic table. Those are called elements. They are in everything, and I mean everything. The fact that they are in everything proves nothing for you. Second - Do you know what dirt is composed of? I do. It's decayed organic matter and geological components. Do you know what decayed organic matter is? It's dead stuff. Like animals and plants. Want to know why dirt contains the same elements and minerals as all other life on earth? It's because that's what dirt is. It is made of dead things.
Now, we all know life comes from dirt. It's a proven fact. The fact that one religious denomination guessed that correctly (With overwhelming evidence to help them - LilBunnyRabbit) means nothing to me. I wonder how many other religions claim life was made from dirt. The fact that science has independantly verified that doesn't vindicate your cause. All it means is that thousands of years ago, when people started writing down their theories on how life began, they guessed right. Congratulations. LilBunnyRabbit made an excellent point on why they even guessed that way at all.


Thanks to YODA, I can put this side-by-side with this quote.

Well well. So, expose a certain compound to the environment, and life results. Energy transfer begins. As an observable event. And not a mystery.

As far as your robot example, I have no idea how you apply that to what has been explained here about evolution. As a matter of fact, I'm looking forward to Kimpatsu's reply, because I know he won't be happy you've been mangling his words like that. I'll say one thing about that though. Just because evolution is based on random mutation does not mean that when babies are born, the evolution machine just slaps on limbs wherever and pumps those puppies out to face the world. You are oversimplifying the process, and making yourself look pretty incapable as you do it. We've devoted 11 pages to explaining very patiently how evolution works, but you have found yourself able to just ignore what we say, and keep recirculating the same arguments over and over again. I miss aikiMac now. At least he gave specific challenges over what we said, instead of childish oversimplification. Actually, aikiMac never oversimplified like that. He challenged us to explain how evolution creates a fully-functioning organ. He didn't oversimplify as you have. As much as we explain and go into detail, you dumb it down again.


No. It definitely does not. And unfortunately, I doubt that humans will be evolving at all anymore. We've removed any kind of natural selection from our environment with our cities, medicine and dominance of the world. There is no fatal competition to select the best physical attributes. Without that, it's almost impossible for us to evolve further.
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3829f8290d8d.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm
 
http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/Courses/BIO102/BIO102S01/creationism.html
 
People were created to ryule over all the other creatures. This hasn't changed, and monekys have never been on top. You can't say that they ever were because animals don't rule over each other. They have their own territory and habitat and then don't intrude on others. Humans are different.

Also, since when were monkeys ever able to speak? If Adam was a monkey, that would mean that monkeys have devolved and lost the ability to speak. You can see that wouldn't work.
 
I could join in this argument, but I know it'll be of no consequence because we'll never all adhere to a single belief system. We'll all have to wait until we pass over to the other side.

But anyway, here's the best pro-creationism site I've seen.

http://www.creationscience.com
 
Belief Belief Belief. Not proven fact, so don't try to push it on us.

So you're saying animals never fight and kill each other for hunting grounds or a water hole? Unfortunately, they do, and I have no idea where you got this idea from. Life isn't a Disney film. Animals do fight for food and habitat, and intrude on each other as they require. Humans are only different because we are greedy, and fight each other so we can accumulate more than we need.

wayofthedragon, that third link you posted is interesting. Personally, I disagree with the hypothesis, but he makes a good scientific point. Not suprising that it came from an engineer though, it shows in his writing. But still, interesting, and I'll be looking into it more.

welshwarrior, you are definitely right about the belief system thing. It's pretty obvious we won't all agree on something, but it's important to be able to discuss both sides of the scientific debate. wayofthedragon has pointed out a good reference to me that I'll have to check out. If it proves something to me, I might have to reconsider my arguments. As it stands though, I'm still evolution-ist, but I keep an open mind.
 
I do think about, but more important I study and research science. I am not sure where the dirt arguement leads, because it is not fundimentally in conflict with evolution. Of course evolution could and does take place in dirt on land and in the sea, but the salt water environment in the dirt on the sea floor favors abiogenisis and the early stages of evolution.




I am not sure where these sounds you speak of are coming from, but there are not any robots involved with the evolution of life on earth.



Robots are a product of intelligent design, but not relavent to the arguement concerning evolution. Intelligent design is basically a belief that may be true or not true. I am not sure where your arguement for big population, but there is real severe population problem now.



Evolution of life does not have and end as far as anyone knows. If you include the evolution of the universe, the many other planets likely to have life and possiblity of other universe there is no end in sight.





Energy transfer occurs everywhere all the time. This is simple observable science in organic and inorganic chemistry. Yamo you need to go back and study some basic high school chemisty.

This was not a good post from the fundimentals of science as they are well known today.
 
This is an interesting source. I don't have much time right now, and I only read it briefly. However, it appears to me that while it states that the second law of thermodynamics challenges our current notion of evolution, nowhere does it state evidence for creationism being a scientific fact. Disproving evolution (which this source doesn't quite do...I'll address that when I have more time) does not prove creationism. The writer seems very eager to jump to the conclusion that creationism is the only acceptable truth, which suggests to me that this source is biased.
 
It sounds like extremely specious reasoning.
The second law of thermodynamics should only properly be applied to relatively simple, non-biological systems and the author doesn't account for the fact that there is a very obvious imperative for reproductive biological molecules to group in ways that benefit their reproduction. You might think it a suspicious coincecdence that all the conditions *just happened* to be right for reproductive molecules to occur on the earth's surface, but this doesn't give you the grounds to reject the entire theory of evolution. Furthermore, to make such an argument would be to ignore the anthropic principle.
I'll translate that to plain english in the morning.
On a side note, you're doing this on purpose, aren't you Phil?
 
The article gets off to a bad start real quick with this quote: "The theory of creation, in fact, has more support from the fundamental laws of physics than does evolution, in particular the second law of thermodynamics."

Since this statement does not reflect a very fundimental undestanding of Physics and things go down hill from there.

Simply the second law of thermodynamics is best demonstated in simple closed systems. The solar system is a closed system. The second law of thermodynamics would apply to the WHOLE system, but it gets very complicated and beyond the scope of this debate. The energy from the sun and the internal heat of the earth is far more energy required for evolution to take place on the earth and possibly Mars. There is no question that energy transfers in terms of chemical reactions take place from these energy sources all the time allowing more than enough energy than is needed for abiogenisis and evolution to take place. This very basic elementary physics and chemestry is learned in college. If people do not have a good grasp of basic science the rest of the arguement is literally hopless and foolish.
 
Back
Top