Evolution Bashing Thread

Well, I can see creationism is getting it fill-in. . Evolutionist say creationism rubbish, well if you guys can state cold hard evidence that does not seem to beat around the bush, Like man and apes have a common ancestor??? Can someone actually tell me with hard cold evidence how this gap is closed between man and apes and this common ancestor???
 
If I remember it went

Ramapithicus

Australopithicus Africannus (extinct line)
Australopithicus Bosei (extinct line)

Homo habilis
Homo erectus---------neanderthal as a sideline
Homo sapiens

It has been a while since I did paleantology but the Africanus/bosei/habilis lines were concurrent with only the habilis line surviving. The skeletons and remains of each branch have been found so there is the "proof" aspect

I believe that "Lucy" was a Ramapithicus, but I could be wrong.

I don't necessarily believe in the above, but it is about as good a suofftopicry as I can remember.
 
I've long been puzzled by something. Maybe one of you guys can help me understand it. Here's the question: How do we get complete parts through evolution?

Ex: My eyeball. I have a lens that focuses light onto some receptors in that pick up the light and makes sense of it and sends info to a particular part of my brain, which makes sense of it, and thus I see. But if I didn't have the lens, why would I evolve the receptors? Or that particular part of my brain? And if I didn't have the receptors, why would I evolve a lens? Or that particular part of my brain?

You get the question? It seems to me that I need all the parts, fully developed, at the same time, or else I can't see anything. So how'd all these parts evolve together?

Another ex: Wings. What good is a half-developed wing? Seems to me that it would be a detriment. Imagine a bat that couldn't fly because it's wings weren't quite done evolving. It couldn't do anything else either! It seems to me that either you need a fully-functioning wing, or no wing, but none of this inbetween stuff.

And one could list other examples too where it's all-or-nothing. You get the question?

Anyone out there have the answer? I'm really puzzled.
 
As has been said before - evolution cannot be proved with 100% certainity yet - there are still a few gaps in the evolutionary chain from apes to modern-day homo sapiens. However, numerous fossil have have found, and are still being found, that show human-like species at various stages in development.

They are compared to other specimens that have been found in different parts of the world using sophisticated dating methods. From this, a steady development of features such as the changing shape of the skulls and standing postures has contributed to a compelling collection of evidence to substantiate Darwin's theory of Evolution and his claim that modern day man is descended from prehistoric apes.

check this timeline out:

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.gif
 
I've been thinking about this for quite a while, myself. I think that you have to picture your whole eye as a single mechanism that evolved over millions of years from previously simpler designs that didn't have such obviously independent parts.
Perhaps I can explain the wing example a little bit better. A bat would not have evloved "half wings" before it had "whole wings". You have to remember that a bat evolved from previously different animals that wouldn't have been so helpless without their wings. As their wings became more devolped throughout their evolutionary lineage, bats no longer needed to be able to function without them. Much like the tiny arms on a T-Rex...their ancestors would have required more powerful limbs, but as the T-Rex became more specialized it reached a point where its front arms were no longer neccessary.
This is just my take on your question though, aikiMac. I could be completely wrong.
 
Sheesh, fossil records, field studies, DNA profiles... what more do you guys want? how about blood? would that help?
 
None of were there to know exactly how it went. Evolution is not a proven fact, but neither is Creationism. Most of the time, we look at the facts and evidence and then come to conclusions that are affected by our biases. DNA profiles, fossil records and field studies do not prove evolution. We look at them and make the best guess we can. As both Creationist and Evolutionist find more evidence, we both try to figure out where it goes in the puzzle of the past.
 
Omicron - Good answer to AikiMac.

AikiMac - To build on Omicron's answer, consider Flying Squirrels. They have "wings", but have not needed (yet) to develop the muscular structure to actually power their own flight. They are the in-between stage. Things don't happen linearly in Evolution. It's usually a roundabout way. As far as eyes are concerned, they definitely do not get assembled in parts. They would evolve from a more simplistic form.
A very rough example - Let's say some creatures exist with just eyes that are just unfocused balls of jelly that admit just enough light to distinguish rough shapes, without being focused by lenses. Let's say that genetic mutation causes 1 out of every 1000 creatures to develop a crude lense. This allows the more focused creatures to see predators and prey better, and flourish. They pass on this mutation to their offspring, and after a couple of dozen generations the ratio becomes 10 out of 1000 because these "lensed" creatures are better hunters and survive longer to produce more offspring. A couple hundred more generations, and 900 out of the 1000 creatures have developed lenses. Evolution at work. The same thing can happen throughout the body. Vestigial organs and limbs are found all over the spectrum, showing organs or limbs being slowly discarded as useless by evolution.

Keep in mind, that example is very simplistic, and doesn't adress a lot of the more complicated processes that happen, but it should give you a good idea on how it all works.

Edit: Some small spelling errors corrected.
 
This is one of the reasons why people believe creation theory. The haven't really studied any aspects of the science of evolution.

They part in question wouldn't have just "appeared". As was mentioned about the flying squirrel (nice example btw), things like this evolve through millions of years, and start from a humble basic beginnings. They then undergo various changes over a VERY long period of time, and this leads to survival of the fittest eg. moths. I can't think of the name, but there was a white moth that lives on light coloured trees. They were therefore camouflaged and harder for preying birds to see. However, when a large power plant appeared near to where they lived, the trees went much darker. The moths now stood out and were gradually killed off by excess predation. When there was a lucky genetic mutation that made the same breed of moths turn darker (think of skin problems - I could go deeper but that's the gist in less sophisticated animals). They were more geared to survival in this area, and they then reproduced. This is one example out of millions, such as the original Darwinian Galapagos finches.
 
Why'd it have any lens at all?
All you did was replace me with this hypothetical animal. The question still remains.


Ah, yes, if we're talking about the same moths, they never died out. There were always white moths and always black moths during the entire period of time that naturalists were keeping track of the moths. Only their relative numbers changed, up and down, with the level of pollution. The moths themselves did not change. Interesting study, but it had nothing to do with evolution.
 
Good on topic site here

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
 
!!!!!!!!!!!Please excuse if i offend in this !!!!!!!!!

Way of the Dragon, i personnaly think you are talking sh*t! There is no scientific proof or support WHAT SO EVER to back up the idea that things were just created! Life evolved! And yes, there is alot of info in support of this, like the way snakes have bones in their bodies that show that they once had legs. This shows that they evolved and changed from some other form of life.
There is no benevolent creator. The universe and its origins are most likely beyond human comprehention, religion was created to give people something to believe in because they couldnt understand the mysteries of the Universe!
 
About the moths - that is what evolution is. Survivial of the fittest. Genetic mutation has lead to the same species developing different colours. The ones with the best characteristics survive and numbers rise. They don't just all die straight away. Although the genetic mutation is not cited here, it is likely that to produce a species solely differing in colour would be down to a mutation a while back. There are however many examples of genetic changes being cited, and said species proliferating. I just don't know where I can illustrate them online.
 
It takes some degree of faith to believe in either of these scenarios. Though I don't believe in evolution, I try to approach it with an open mind.

Even if I were not a Christian, I would find it hard to accept evolution and all of the other theories that go with it as fact. Maybe I would approach it with more of an open mind, but there are still too many holes and gaps for me to accept it as fact. Even if I pretend for a moment that evolution theory is correct, I would be accepting it by faith because I cannot say (without some amount of faith), "This is without a doubt, fact." There are areas I just can't logically accept. How can the order of life we see around us be the result of a natural disaster? I realize this is an argument that we Christians have run into the ground already I'm sure, so I won't persue it further, but it is a good point. I have seen plenty of evidence from both sides of the debate. I tried to look at it open mindedly, but even if I were to accept the big bang and evolution theories, it would take a great degree of faith on my part. Much of the evidence that scientists present appears to be jumping to conclusions. There are plenty of different fossils and bones from animals that supposedly evolved into something else, some very similar, but I wouldn't go so far as to say one evolved into the other. Also, creation scientists have presented evidence of their own, showing proven holes in current dating methods that scientists use to say something is X million/billion years old, evidence showing that men may have existed with dinosaurs, etc. While some claims have been debunked, the same can be said of some claims by evolutionists in the past.

I just can't accept that everything happened by chance, order from chaos, life from nonlife. Force of nature guiding life through evolution. If I must use any degree of faith to believe in something, which would be the case whichever way I choose to believe, I would rather it be something that requires faith by definition.

Everyone will most likely believe what they are taught to believe. Most evolutionists enter these debates with the same stance Christians do, already determined not to be persuaded, yet want to call themselves open minded. The only difference is the perspective standpoint.

And hey, it's everyones right to believe whatever they want. Just don't be hypocritical about it. Don't expect others to believe the same way you do just because of the source your 'truth' comes from. After all, there was a time when scientists thought flies/maggots evolved from old meat.
 
See, this is the kind of post I wish people arguing for creationism would make more often. They are so much easier to stomach than the ones based on blind faith.
Stratiotes, I respect your opinion, but let me try to give some reasons why I personally favour the theory of evolution.


Ever see the aftermath of a volcanic eruption? The lava and ash will decimate the surrounding area, but after a few years small plants will return. Soon enough, there will be flowers, trees, and all sorts of cute furry animals running around again. I know this isn't exactly the same thing as the big bang theory, but life can spring from disaster.

There will always be holes in our knowledge of history, I think. It's just something we have to accept. The world is an ever-changing place, and things get lost over time. Remember, the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. The whole basis of theories in science is that they can never truly be verified. For that, you would have to test every available option and outcome, and that just isn't practical. We call it the "theory of relativity", because it's impossible to plug every single number into Einstein's formulae and test to see that the outcome is always correct. Yet, we use his theories to run nuclear powerplants and blow up atomic bombs. They can't be absolutely proven, but they are accurate enough that they work with any given numbers, so we accept that they are true. It seems to me that the theory of evolution holds enough water, and is demostrably correct enough under enough of a varitey of circumstances to be considered "true".
 
Well, this is a load of cobblers. Anyone who hasn't read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins isn't really placed to discuss this, but let me just ask WOTD: Why would god bother to litter the human genome with junk tandem DNA, why is the squid's eye better than the human eye, and why are there 60 million different species of beetles? Then we could go onto the nature of evolution, etc.
...And now, it's just occurred to me: Do you actually know what evolution is, or are you dissing a strawman? Enquiring minds want to know...
 
I'll excuse YOU if you'll excuse ME for banning you next time you use language like that here. * or no *.
 
Sorry YODA. I accept that I was wrong to use that language. I guess I just got carried away by what i think was a stupid statement by wayofthedragon. But hey, I've seen other users use bad words before (I know, no excuse for me to do it). Anyway, I think the whole idea of bad language is ridiculous. They are just sounds! but thats anothers day's discussion.
 
Back
Top