More Proof That Evolution is Not a Theory

Well, evolution is simply the best we can come up with. So is the rest of science. It has nothing to do with atheism. In fossil records, we see the progression of organisms with intermediates. Of course, with the lack of data available, that would lead us to believe that it is changing, as fossils show appearance changing over time.

What else are we supposed to do, bury our heads in the sand, refuse to look at evidence and formulate some sort of hypothesis? I'm nowhere near sold on evolution, but you have to look at what we have and, well, just think. Wonder, indulge in curiosity, about what it could mean, what its limitations are, and how likely that hypothesis is.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Science is a search for knowledge. Religion is a search for wisdom. To have either without the other is to have nothing.

Beautifully put. Star for you. It amazes me that people fight over this. Of course, people fight over the stupidest of things IMO. Myself included.

Originally posted by Keeper of Kheb
The thing is christians have it made if they're wrong no biggy we don't lose anything if we're right we gain everything. Come join our side the grass is greener over here...

What happens if your God turns out to be Allah, Buddah, Zues, the flying spaghetti man? And you go to hell for believing in the wrong religion?

Still think Christians have it made?

The rule of Man manifests under appropriate conditions (within larger rules).

Originally posted by Johnmike
Well, evolution is simply the best we can come up with. So is the rest of science. It has nothing to do with atheism. In fossil records, we see the progression of organisms with intermediates. Of course, with the lack of data available, that would lead us to believe that it is changing, as fossils show appearance changing over time.

What else are we supposed to do, bury our heads in the sand, refuse to look at evidence and formulate some sort of hypothesis? I'm nowhere near sold on evolution, but you have to look at what we have and, well, just think. Wonder, indulge in curiosity, about what it could mean, what its limitations are, and how likely that hypothesis is.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by Johnmike]

My friend, please don't take this the wrong way but you are the same as most "everyday evolutionists" and Christians, you believe what you have been taught without questioning.

Fossils do NOT show the progression of organisms with intermediates. Those "intermediates" would be transitional forms which do not exist. Those so-called "transitional forms" which do exist are simply mutations. There are just not enough to qualify. If you found a skeleton of a hunchback would you believe that all men at one time were hunchbacks? I wouldn't, but if you found thousands of them all over the planet I might just believe that we were. If you found them all in one "period layer" with no "upright men" in the same layer I would almost certainly believe.

ALL the "evidence" found for MACRO-evolution ONLY show MICRO-evolution or the odd mutation. There is ZERO evidence for macro-evolution.

Originally posted by Lannock
My friend, please don't take this the wrong way but you are the same as most "everyday evolutionists" and Christians, you believe what you have been taught without questioning.

No, actually, I don't.

Originally posted by Lannock
Fossils do NOT show the progression of organisms with intermediates. Those "intermediates" would be transitional forms which do not exist. Those so-called "transitional forms" which do exist are simply mutations. There are just not enough to qualify. If you found a skeleton of a hunchback would you believe that all men at one time were hunchbacks? I wouldn't, but if you found thousands of them all over the planet I might just believe that we were. If you found them all in one "period layer" with no "upright men" in the same layer I would almost certainly believe.

Well a "transitional form" is technically a mutation of the original species. But like I said (and I sort of repeated myself to make it clear), I don't think it's anywhere near conclusive. Some fossil records are more convincing than others, but all in all, saying that macro-evolution certainly exists is a bit of a stretch.

Originally posted by Lannock
ALL the "evidence" found for MACRO-evolution ONLY show MICRO-evolution or the odd mutation. There is ZERO evidence for macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is simply accumulated micro-evolution. That is, one part of an organism's genetic structure will change, giving it a survival advantage. I'm not well-versed on most fossil records or what exactly has been found, but all you really need to do is separate a small number of organisms (smaller is more important) of a species, isolate them for a really long time, and you pretty much have some genetic drift (interbreeding accelerates this). They'll still probably be able to breed with members of the original population, but sometimes they wouldn't be able to due to a genetic incompatibility, like a chromosome mismatch, or some kind of sexual incompatibility.

This is how it would happen, and should happen over time. Whether or not it happens to the extent to drive macro-evolution is the question, and something I'm always a skeptic of.