What is evolution, not what some think

a reply to: Murgatroid

Your links are to sites that are riddled with pseudo-historical misrepresentations. Oh and ones that are selling things. Classy.

originally posted by: libertytoall
Pure logic would tell me the theory of evolution is simply not possible the way it's presented. We've never EVER found a fossil record that indicates a species evolving into another species. Yet new species arise and die daily. How can evolution explain that?

Just as AngryCymraeg mentioned, and Dr. Dawkins said many times, common misinformation is that we don't have any transitional fossils, where in fact we have many. Just take a look at this link. Also, look at youtube video I posted earlier in this topic.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: SuperFrog
www.hulu.com...

Well
Explain how the big bang happened, just the facts I do not want you to say anything without observing it, learning and studying it.Really, give it a shot, and then we can talk
Then we can move on to the next of the evolutions

If you are really 'borntowatch', just follow link to series, start from episode 1 and big bang will be well explained to you, as well data that supports it, including CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).

originally posted by: SuperFrog

If you are really 'borntowatch', just follow link to series, start from episode 1 and big bang will be well explained to you, as well data that supports it, including CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).

My broadband is limited, I cant watch video, sorry

What caused the bigbang and how did nothing make something
I am not interested in CMBR just yet, just the initiation of the BB, the how and why. i am not even interested in the where and when

Its not a hard question to answer

a reply to: borntowatch

Who has told you nothing made something? Did you learn that from a creationist site?

One poster has already explained to you within the thread that the big bang did not come from nothing. You have been misinformed on that as well.

The big bang starts from a singularity it then explodes. The theory itself does not try to explain what came before the singularity although some have formed separate Hypothesisis exploring the subject, but none are widely accepted yet. There simply isn't enough data to support any of them as of yet.

a reply to: borntowatch

Can you watch youtube? (Why do I have feeling that your nick name is a bit misleading )



I would also recommend to get Dr. Krauss book 'A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing', as whole book tackles this topic that seems of high interest to you.

I am sure that if you really interested to learn, you will find a way to get either book or those videos to work.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: libertytoall
Pure logic would tell me the theory of evolution is simply not possible the way it's presented. We've never EVER found a fossil record that indicates a species evolving into another species. Yet new species arise and die daily. How can evolution explain that?

Just as AngryCymraeg mentioned, and Dr. Dawkins said many times, common misinformation is that we don't have any transitional fossils, where in fact we have many. Just take a look at this link. Also, look at youtube video I posted earlier in this topic.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: SuperFrog
www.hulu.com...

Well
Explain how the big bang happened, just the facts I do not want you to say anything without observing it, learning and studying it.Really, give it a shot, and then we can talk
Then we can move on to the next of the evolutions

If you are really 'borntowatch', just follow link to series, start from episode 1 and big bang will be well explained to you, as well data that supports it, including CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).

Thank you for posting this. I have never had anyone point me toward transitional fossils. I can accept and change my viewpoint on evolution. I'm not stuck in my ways but I still beg the question. If evolution exists do all creatures evolve out of something? I'm trying to understand how new species arise everyday that appear to have no relation or transition from another species. Could it be possible creationism and evolution may both be right?? And that they both may be at work together at the same time??

a reply to: libertytoall

I'll take you at your word.

If evolution exists do all creatures evolve out of something? I'm trying to understand how new species arise everyday that appear to have no relation or transition from another species.

New species certainly do arise from time to time, but why do you say they 'appear to have no relation or transition from another species'? As is well known, living things are grouped together by zoologists according to how closely they are related to one another. Originally, these groupings (phylum, class, order, family, etc.) were constructed by looking at the physical characteristics of different species and noting how similar or different these were. It is easy enough to track roughly the evolution of the eye, or the transition from fin to limb to wing, along these different branches and groupings.

When it came to be possible to investigate genetic relatedness between species (by counting up the genes they share between them), it turned out that the relationships established by taxonomic comparison (that is, by looking at physical characteristics) matched the relationships established by genetic comparison pretty well — though there were quite a few surprises, such as the discovery that the land animals most closely related to whales are hippopotami.

When new living species are discovered, they are always seen to be related to known species, either living or extinct.

And at the end of the day, all living things share the same system of celll division and individual reproduction, using the same kind of blueprints and manufacturing templates — DNA and RNA. That is clear evidence that they all evolved from a single common ancestor.

I hope this answers your question, and inspires you to ask a few more.

(There is actually an ATS thread of transitional forms, which I curated for a while after the OP left the forum, though I haven't bothered much with it lately. Still, it provides a good catalogue if you're interested in specific examples.)

a reply to: libertytoall

You're welcome.

As already mentioned on this topic, origin of life and living things are not tackled by evolution. This is completely different field, abiogenesis has high chance to be proven soon, as our technology in recreating lab with earlier earth setup is getting better and better. Some well respected scientist, such as late Dr. Sagan had opinion that life might create very differently given different setups. For example, there might be quite different kind of life under Jupiter moon Europa.

As for creation - there is no single thing that points at life being created, and even if it was, question would be - what created creator.

I never had any religious belief, never was in any of organized religions, but was interested to learn more about. I guess main reason I will never be religious is that I can't believe in some scriptures. I can see where someone who was brainwashed from childhood that science got it wrong, and that religious books have science in them as YEC believe - folks might have hard time waking up and learning that stories about someone eaten by whale and surviving 3 days - is just that - story not much different then red riding hood story, where the same thing occurred, and it is even the same day that bad wolf got killed and girl and gran got saved, still story not even kids believe today in...

originally posted by: libertytoall
I'll take a stab at this. I'm no creationist but I find many flaws in the current theory of evolution. For example tell me if I'm wrong but aren't we taught we all came from a primordial ooze which eventually became more complex life and then became ocean dwelling creatures which evolved into fish with feet and eventually up to the ape and neanderthal / humans etc?? I find all that to be a cool hollywood story but many holes are in it.

Drop the primordial ooze part and substitute in the term "common ancestor". We don't know how life started and we don't know if it was a primordial ooze either. Also please elucidate, where are the holes that you see with this account of things? You say you see many holes with this theory but you never elaborate on them. How can we educate you and explain these holes if you don't expand on them?

Pure logic would tell me the theory of evolution is simply not possible the way it's presented. We've never EVER found a fossil record that indicates a species evolving into another species. Yet new species arise and die daily. How can evolution explain that?

Pure logic tells me that you don't fully understand evolution if you think that logic says it is impossible. You claim you aren't a creationist, so does that mean you would be willing to read articles and sources that I provide that are scientific based instead of creationist drivel? (Basically if it comes from a creationist site it is probably wrong and you shouldn't trust what they are saying) I ask this because I want to see if you TRULY want to learn about evolution or if you are just trying to hide behind ignorance while claiming that evolution is wrong like most Creationists who deny evolution do.

Yet new species arise and die daily. How can evolution explain that?

Because that is how evolution works... New species are created as small mutations accrue over many generations until the resulting new generations of the species look and behave nothing like their distant ancestors. Sometimes the mutations aren't beneficial to the animals in whatever environmental niche they are in and it causes them to die out. Sometimes another species through the process of its evolution become able to out compete the first species for resources and it dies out because it cannot adapt in time.

I know that most representations of evolution show a linear path of an animal transitioning slowly over time from one thing to another, but that is actually kind of a simple representation of it that can create misconceptions. A better example would be to look at a tree structure with many branches branching from every species on the chart. MOST paths would dead end as those mutations would cause the species to die out. However the ones that survive would eventually create their OWN evolutionary branches where in turn most would die out with only a few going on to create more. This is a highly recursive process. Looking at the process linearly allows creationists to pretend like we'd ever find a dog becoming a duck or something like the end result is predetermined. But if you look at it as a tree structure, then it is easy to conceptualize that many different results happen and we only see the successful ones.

a reply to: borntowatch

Well Explain how the big bang happened, just the facts Then we can move on to the next of the evolutions

The fact is there are a few hypothesis, the origins of the universe is not one of my areas of expertise, but I I'm not going to make any theological leaps, injecting a causing agent would be at best... a guess.
But I will say.. I don't know.

If your interested in the Big Bang "inflation" itself, you're in luck!
Until recently the Inflationary Hypothesis was just an ad hoc explanation which was appealing because it ad-hoc-explained so many things.
Researchers from a number of schools and organizations scanned 2% of the sky with a telescope at the South Pole for three years and have detected gravitational waves, confirming with direct evidence that within a fraction of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, the cosmos began to expand.

Big Bang's "Smoking Gun" Confirms Early Universe's Exponential Growth.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Your links are to sites that are riddled with pseudo-historical misrepresentations. Oh and ones that are selling things. Classy.

ORLY?

Darwinism is nothing BUT pseudo-historical misrepresentations.

Oh and thanks for helping to illustrate my point as well BTW...

"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control..." LINK

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Your links are to sites that are riddled with pseudo-historical misrepresentations. Oh and ones that are selling things. Classy.

ORLY?

Darwinism is nothing BUT pseudo-historical misrepresentations.

Oh and thanks for helping to illustrate my point as well BTW...

"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control..." LINK

(Facepalm) Oh dearie me...

a reply to: Murgatroid

I'm just a casual observer in all this, but there's one thing I don't quite grasp;
You seem to be implying that The Theory of Evolution is all one big lie, deliberately and intentionally designed to mislead - but to what purpose? Who benefits and why?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Murgatroid

I'm just a casual observer in all this, but there's one thing I don't quite grasp;
You seem to be implying that The Theory of Evolution is all one big lie, deliberately and intentionally designed to mislead - but to what purpose? Who benefits and why?

If you dont mind I will answer this

Is it 1 big lie, ultimately it is. The scientific community is split on many of the origins theories.
The 5 theories listed have many factions with different hypothesis as to explain why their beliefs are sound, or in most cases why some theories dont stand up.
The evidence does seem to conclude that we may have seen a big bang, though it is illogical
The evidence does seem to conclude that we have a elemental scale, but to form from, well I am not to sure how they formed
The evidence does seem to conclude that we have life, yet I have issues with how it started

Your assumption is that this lie is deliberate and intentional, again in most cases I think that it is not intentional.

Late one night driving down the road I notice an old classic car burning on the side of the road, small fire in the front bench seat. I had no fire extinguisher (I did but it was empty) only a can of beer, I went over to the car and opened the door climbed in and poured my beer over the fire, extinguishing the fire.
It would have been sad to see such a nice old car burn.
I didnt remember what I did to the empty can of beer, but evidently left it in the car

Problem was the car had been stolen and my prints were all over the car and empty can

So in short the evidence pointed to me as the car thief and as you could imagine the drama that ensued with the police. Was I innocent, in this case I was, but the evidence sadly didnt look good.

The police thought I was lying, said that they would cause me no end of trouble if I didnt confess.

Now the evidence fitted me for the crime, the police wanted to catch a criminal

See the evidence of existence does need a theory, the anti God group wont accept a divine authorship. So they look for evidence to suit their belief.
Some evidence does fit well but the issue they cant face is cause. What caused it, any of it.

The deliberate and intentional side? Well this becomes spiritual and we leave science and evidence behind.
Satan hates God and mankind and is in open warfare to separate humanity from God.
Evolution in all its kinds proves God does not exist
Satan wins by destroying Gods creation and relationship with man




You know what saved me from being arrested, my empty fire extinguisher, it was just enough to confirm my story.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: libertytoall
I'll take a stab at this. I'm no creationist but I find many flaws in the current theory of evolution. For example tell me if I'm wrong but aren't we taught we all came from a primordial ooze which eventually became more complex life and then became ocean dwelling creatures which evolved into fish with feet and eventually up to the ape and neanderthal / humans etc?? I find all that to be a cool hollywood story but many holes are in it.

Drop the primordial ooze part and substitute in the term "common ancestor". We don't know how life started and we don't know if it was a primordial ooze either. Also please elucidate, where are the holes that you see with this account of things? You say you see many holes with this theory but you never elaborate on them. How can we educate you and explain these holes if you don't expand on them?

Pure logic would tell me the theory of evolution is simply not possible the way it's presented. We've never EVER found a fossil record that indicates a species evolving into another species. Yet new species arise and die daily. How can evolution explain that?

Pure logic tells me that you don't fully understand evolution if you think that logic says it is impossible. You claim you aren't a creationist, so does that mean you would be willing to read articles and sources that I provide that are scientific based instead of creationist drivel? (Basically if it comes from a creationist site it is probably wrong and you shouldn't trust what they are saying) I ask this because I want to see if you TRULY want to learn about evolution or if you are just trying to hide behind ignorance while claiming that evolution is wrong like most Creationists who deny evolution do.

Yet new species arise and die daily. How can evolution explain that?

Because that is how evolution works... New species are created as small mutations accrue over many generations until the resulting new generations of the species look and behave nothing like their distant ancestors. Sometimes the mutations aren't beneficial to the animals in whatever environmental niche they are in and it causes them to die out. Sometimes another species through the process of its evolution become able to out compete the first species for resources and it dies out because it cannot adapt in time.

I know that most representations of evolution show a linear path of an animal transitioning slowly over time from one thing to another, but that is actually kind of a simple representation of it that can create misconceptions. A better example would be to look at a tree structure with many branches branching from every species on the chart. MOST paths would dead end as those mutations would cause the species to die out. However the ones that survive would eventually create their OWN evolutionary branches where in turn most would die out with only a few going on to create more. This is a highly recursive process. Looking at the process linearly allows creationists to pretend like we'd ever find a dog becoming a duck or something like the end result is predetermined. But if you look at it as a tree structure, then it is easy to conceptualize that many different results happen and we only see the successful ones.

so there should be transitionals all around us today, right?

anyone have an idea which are in transition?
or do all animals and plants transit at the same speed?

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: borntowatch

Well Explain how the big bang happened, just the facts Then we can move on to the next of the evolutions

The fact is there are a few hypothesis, the origins of the universe is not one of my areas of expertise, but I I'm not going to make any theological leaps, injecting a causing agent would be at best... a guess.
But I will say.. I don't know.

If your interested in the Big Bang "inflation" itself, you're in luck!
Until recently the Inflationary Hypothesis was just an ad hoc explanation which was appealing because it ad-hoc-explained so many things.
Researchers from a number of schools and organizations scanned 2% of the sky with a telescope at the South Pole for three years and have detected gravitational waves, confirming with direct evidence that within a fraction of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, the cosmos began to expand.

Big Bang's "Smoking Gun" Confirms Early Universe's Exponential Growth.

so did space expand faster than light?
how much faster?

does anyone know how or why it did that?

is it still expanding?

a reply to: tsingtao

We all are transitional more or less we have not stopped evolving.
Some animals have not evolved for millions of year because If it aint broke why fix it.
It's all about adapting to the environment every specie alive today has successfully done so.
Look at those lizards which are changing from egg laying to live births it kinda explains how and why a animal can evolve into having a live birth.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: tsingtao

We all are transitional more or less we have not stopped evolving.
Some animals have not evolved for millions of year because If it aint broke why fix it.
It's all about adapting to the environment every specie alive today has successfully done so.
Look at those lizards which are changing from egg laying to live births it kinda explains how and why a animal can evolve into having a live birth.

So a lizard gives birth to a lizard, that proves nothing about evolution

How has it evolved, can you prove that lizards never gave birth to living offspring, I know you cant.

Its more like an adaptation as opposed to evolution.

More evidence please

a reply to: borntowatch

www.hngn.com... ideo.htm

Link to big so here is the search its the top article.

www.hngn.com...


Yup.

Look at dolphins they came from the sea (like all life) walked on land and evolved again to go back into the sea.

understanddolphins.tripod.com...

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: borntowatch

www.hngn.com... ideo.htm

Link to big so here is the search its the top article.

www.hngn.com...


Yup.

Look at dolphins they came from the sea (like all life) walked on land and evolved again to go back into the sea.

understanddolphins.tripod.com...

A

Thats fine if you want to believe that.
I dont, yours is just the most popular theory at this time.

Yup