Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

reply to post by nj2day


Good stuff there nj. As much as I enjoy Dawkins or Hitchens, they both do come off as condescending a-holes to most Christians. Sagan, while not an atheist, could atleast explain Science in a thought and amazingly simplistic manner I don't think anyone else really can. Ironically enough, I think the man who does the best of breaking down Science, especially evolution, if Robert Bakker. He worked on the first two Jurassic Park films and is also a minister.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

Sorry, completelywrong...we are not evolving, it's simple adaptation. We did not evolve from any other species. God gave us adaptability however. There is NO evolution. We adapt, just like when we tan in the sun, or some are hairy and some not. This has nothing to do with evolution. By the way, the earth is not billions of years old.....and neither are dinosaurs. I know this, because I said so.

Originally posted by John Matrix
It's mathematically impossible even with a trillion years for a few amino acids floating around in a swamp to gather together to make a single strand of DNA never mind a single celled organism.

One needs to define just what are we debating here. You are talking about the spark of life, and with life so abundant on earth we still can't create it from non-living compounds. So the question is, was life a random event, or was it influenced with intelligence design. After that spark of life, evolution was just the process to move it a long.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

Sorry, completelywrong...we are not evolving, it's simple adaptation.

Simple adaptations are the foundation of evolution...

suppose you take a simple adaptation... add another adaptation, and another and another for a few thousand times...

How can one believe we are not continuously evolving? we still have traits from a time when we were a different species... Are wisdom teeth benificial in any way? I should say not... Instead, they are teeth that were usefull when our skull was shaped differently...

I'm glad you grasp the basic premise of evolution... now you just need to extrapolate your "simple adaptations" over billions of years.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


Sagan is awesome... But I do have to point out, that he was indeed an atheist...

Here are some quotes:

"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men."

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it,"

reply to post by nj2day


Mm, judging from his books I always had him marked as an agnostic who knew the Biblical God was BS but thought "Something" out there. Either way, not a point arguing about.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


No worries! He kind of walked a fine line on the atheist/agnostic question... he did believe without proof than its not worth considering... which I take as athiest...

However, I wasn't arguing with you LOL it was more or less just a chance to shamelessly plug in quotes from the man...

Sagan was a genius...

THE OP is great, its like getting a geography lesson from Chris Columbus' navigator

or a driving lesson from Stevie Wonder

Praise the lord!

I will make sure to do a U turn on the freeway just in homage to this fine announcement!



[edit on 18-12-2008 by The Bald Champion]

Originally posted by John Matrix
It's mathematically impossible even with a trillion years for a few amino acids floating around in a swamp to gather together to make a single strand of DNA never mind a single celled organism.

it is?

then can you explian why

why the elemenets aranged them selves into organic compounds each more complex then the last given nothing but and enviroment where there are found together? a couple of days and no prodding is all it took

numerous experiments have produced those numerous amino acids from those numerous organic compounds given nothing but enviromental conditions and a few days?

a strand of dna is a more complex copy of rna which is just a more complex copy of earlier polymers .... and that requires just a few self assembleying components in any order how high are the odds ?

extremly low its a natural process it happens not against staggering odds but becasue it is what will happen because its a chemical reaction

like adding potassium to water theres very little variance in the possible reactions

its not magic, or mass odds of improbability its chemistry


the things found in this video have been CONFIRMED in Dr. Szostak's LAB
its tested and observed not guessed at and hoped to have happened

Now consider that there are millions of types of life on earth and millions of single celled organisms. That means trillions X trillions of parallel transformations within DNA and cells (among all the separate species) would have to magically take place.

no magic no parallel

not everything formed at the same time, and then mutated and passed them on down the line

its not magic its the same as taking a strole to the store or walking across america, its all just little steps one after another and with natural selection stopping them going the wrong way by killing them off if they did theres only one direction they can go, improvment and more complexity

its not massive odds, its not the odds of bieng able to jump from the bottom of a tower and land on the top in one go like they odds you speak of suggest

Orgel's Second Rule
"Evolution is cleverer than you are."

while your stood there working out the odds of that, evolutions wondered into the building found the stairs and is walking up inside in a nice simple low odds way

If that was the case, we would be able to observe transformations with our own eyes....and lots of them. We do see variations within species through adaptive responses(which is preprogramed in their genetic code)

and added to by mutations, unless we share exactly the same code for insects?

which would explain why a small population of people have mutated the ability to see at least some of the ultra violet band width of light, they can see flowers as insects do

evolution is variation in species, its not a duck turning into a lion thats the stuff off sillyness

its ducks through minor mutation in the genetic code and enviromental pressure becoming a little different to the ducks before, so on and so on until all those little mutations build up and they are now so drastically different from the original duck we decide to call them somthing else

a duck doesnt know what species or genus or family it is it doesnt care and neither does evolution so they are happy to go about thier buisness and given buildup and enviromental pressure change and break our classification

species is just a thing we made up to help us understand, ducks dont care what we make up they just get on with what they are doing

and those transformations? we see them often its just you dont understand what it is the should be or at what scale they appear on

as with dogs and humans, but a dog is a dog is a dog and an adaptive response does not transform one species into another.

exactly

everyone looks a bit like thier parents, and thier kids look a bit like them, and thier kids ... and its all those abits that add up and few hundred generations down the line they end up loking pretty different to the first parents we looked at

they are still dogs

as birds are still reptiles, they just changed enough we decided to give them a new name, which they still dont care about

nature isnt confined by the classifiaction system we use, but it appears for many of us our thinking is

There is no evidence for that. Well, an eternity would not give you enough time for the trillions of parallel transmutations and transformations to take place.

see here goes the bad maths again it doesnt take trillions

genetic variance mutations between homo sapaien sapien and pans troglodyte shows 35 million mutations with another 5million deletions or additions

but only around 3million of those are found outside of junk dna, only 3 million real changes between us and them

beneficial mutations appear at roughly 4 per generation (note thats beneficial not duplications subtractions or changes that do nothing),

3,000,000/4 = 750,000 and its 2 species so divide by two 375,000

average generation age for humans is 20, so lets see what happens when we go 20(years) * 375,000(important mutations per species) =7,500,000
7.5 million .... hmm and when do they think humans and chimps had already been worked out to have diversed? 6-7 million years ago

hhhmmmm

we know generations start appearing before 20 years so we can nock some years off the top if we want but even just on averages the data supports what we had already worked out from other means

but your ignoring the junk dna i hear you say, yes becasue alot of what was called junk dna doesnt really do a lot, if we remove vast chunks of it you still get a functioning living breeding same species genome.wellcome.ac.uk...

now the junk dna raises the age of genetic divergance but the removal of the erv traces(partial virus code hitching a lift through time) and duplications and the revised generation age bring us back once again to our magic region of around 6-7 million years

no need for trillions of parallel mutations over trillions of years, just 6-7mil years to form into humans and chimps from our common ancestor

so now the 700million years from early rodentish mammals to all mammals doesnt seem that big a deal it took humans and apes just a hundreth of it

and the hundereds of million years from early reptiles to dinosaurs, the same

amphibians to reptiles again the same

its basic chemistry biology physics maths and time not massive odds of randomness and magic and disbelief

Believing evolution is like believing

that natural reactions that can do and will happen, have are and will happen so no need for belief just understanding and acceptance

that if you watched the snow on an off air television set the electrons would eventually form a picture of my naked wife! You only wish...LOL

do they die? breed with variance? subject to enviromental pressure? no so its nothing alike

for that analogy to work the electrons that had formed even the tiniest fraction of the picture would stick around, and then when more appeared similar would stick around, and so on and so on and then yes you would start getting a picture that looked like your wife naked

its cumulative selection not linear randomness

if the tv snow was subject to natural selection at 21 generations a second the image of your wife would take seconds to appear

this is an example of what happens if evolution is given a specific goal in terms of enviromental fitness



and uses pictures as the goal

[edit on 18/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 18/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 18/12/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


this video might help... if anyone is interested in watching it...

Google Video Link

It makes all the points noob is trying to make...

[edit on 18-12-2008 by nj2day]

reply to post by nj2day


love the christmas lectures i remeber watching this one as a teenager 17 years ago .... starting to feel old now

lcukily i never owned a shirt like that .... but i did own a hooded top that the pattern was similar fashion is a terrible beast

The Christmas Lectures bring alive scientific research for the whole family and are broadcast on Channel Five in prime time. This year, the lectures will be shown as follows:
Monday 29 December at 7.15pm Breaking the speed limit
Tuesday 30 December at 7.15pm Chips with everything
Wednesday 31 December at 7.15pm The ghost in the machine
Thursday 1 January at 7.15pm Untangling the web
Friday 2 January at 7.15pm Digital intelligence

this years lectures are on computers and digital intelligence and yes even though im not a kid anymore ill probabily still watch it and make sure my 10 year old niece is with me so i have an excuse

[edit on 18/12/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


I've got the entire lecture series on DVD had to special order them from the UK...

I do wonder whats up with that shirt though lol

I wish we could get the lectures over here in the U.S...

Instead I have to wait until I can watch em on youtube... sigh...




[edit on 18-12-2008 by nj2day]

reply to post by noobfun


Please create a living cell from amino acids and any other components(organic or not) and in any place or matter you wish. If all our micro biology experts and geneticists cannot do it with all our technology, then trillions of years of random clumping together from gravitational influence, water currents, convection currents, wave action, etc. in an ocean or swamp, is impossible.

To believe that life is a product of randomness given enough time, you would have to believe that by watching the black and white snow on your television set will some day, through the random firing of electons, produce a color picture of my naked wife.

Proving that a single cell is the product of randomness under the right conditions and eons of time, is impossible. From there, this fictional evolving cell would have to adapt to become millions of life forms. Which means millions of parallel evolutionary paths and trillions X trillions of transformational and transitional changes within Trillions upon trillions upon trillions of cells in Millions of life forms.

Evolution is pure fantasy. That people believe it as being a proven fact is the very reason the human race acts like animals.

Tell a big enough lie loud enough and long enough and the spoon fed masses will come to believe it as truth and self destruct.

Very simple response. Why do some people who don't know the answer to something default to a supernatural explanation? We used to think of lightning, and crop failures as supernatural events. Now we know why. At least for that. Between you and me the supernatural is just the natural we don't understand yet.

Originally posted by John Matrix

Please create a living cell from amino acids and any other components(organic or not) and in any place or matter you wish.

no need already done

did you watch the video i poster earlier?

this one



there are 7 key factors that deffine something as living

1. Living Things are Composed of Cells very basic but yes

2. Living Things Have Different Levels of Organization different parts play different functions so yes

3. Living Things Use Energy yes they eat each other and use thermal energy

4. Living Things Respond To Their Environment infact it uses the enviroment to help it multiply and recharge monomers using the enviuroment

5. Living Things Grow thats shown too

6. Living Things Reproduce yes and this

7. Living Things Adapt To Their Environment changing lipids to stop them escaping is adapting to the enviroment eating the competition to fuel your self is adapting to the enviroment using the enviroment to help you is adapting to the enviroment

it meets all those, life like species doesnt have a set deffintion becasue they are so varied in scope so it all depends which deffintion you use. by the basic accepted one we already have, but not good enough for science so it keeps working diligentley trying to understand more trying to see just how far they can run with it

If all our micro biology experts and geneticists cannot do it with all our technology, then trillions of years of random clumping together from gravitational influence, water currents, convection currents, wave action, etc. in an ocean or swamp, is impossible.

well it appears they can do it with our technology we can even scratch build virus's

then use these virus to get things done for us, bioengineered plants are made with an existing virus we have modified to do what we want it to do, we could simply make our very own from start to finish but why when we can use whats already there

so i guess as your statement shows if we can do then so can nature, and nature can do it a lot easier then us becasue it doesnt have to understand what or why it is doing it, it just does becasue its the only thing it can

To believe that life is a product of randomness given enough time,

is absurd which is why we dont, theres that R word again that forgets to take into account its a strictly controlled system, controlled by enviromental factors controlled by physical laws controlled by competition

you would have to believe that by watching the black and white snow on your television set will some day, through the random firing of electons, produce a color picture of my naked wife.

umm you did read where i said why this is nothing like evolution? and that if goal orientated natural selection was impossed on it your wifes picture would appear ... obviously not as your making the same failed analogy

Proving that a single cell is the product of randomness under the right conditions and eons of time, is impossible.

your probabily right

but proving a cell can form under the directed casues of chemical reactions weak force electromagnetic force gravity and a little bit of time is what abiogenesis is all about, its not random its practicaly ineveitable

abiogenesis isnt wrong your strawman of what you think it is, is wrong

ill skip the rest it all relies on a strawman ive just pointed out is wrong, start with the wrong conclusion and thats where your probabily going to end up

Tell a big enough lie loud enough and long enough and the spoon fed masses will come to believe it as truth and self destruct.

or make wonderful symbols for them and fight over interpretations of them and beg them for forgivness and to go to the special spot in the sky

it works both ways ;-) but science relies on evidence not lies or faith ... so not so much both ways really



[edit on 18/12/08 by noobfun]

I suppose dinosaurs never existed then, right?

Even though the bones are sitting in front of you - or powering your vehicle you still wouldn't believe it.

Dude, we are all monkeys and we still really know nothing about anything.

I'm a monkey, he's a monkey, wouldn't you like to be a monkey too?

Who cares. Can't we ever live in the here and now?

Can't we quit arguing about the past and why everything is the way it is

We should just be ourselves and live in the here and now. We should fighting the system and we should be taking all these Elite scumbags to the gallows for a short walk and a quick drop, but no, we are all on here debating whether we are decended from monkeys.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Evolution is a proven fact. You may be able to prove that humans didnt come from monkeys, but it is impossible to deny that we live in a constantly-evolving world. Every animal species on the planet shows some form of evolution.

What I love though is the assertion that believing in evolution, which there is proof of, is ignorant....so what then, are we to believe a myth about a creator and some omnipotent god that judges us from uphigh?

Evolution is not a fact. Adaptation is a fact. There's not one single shred of evidence that proves evolution to be anything but unproven theory. I hate to tell you, but you can't sit there and laugh at religion without doing the same to evolution. Both are religions. Take your pick: either blindly believe in an omnipotent being or blindly believe in what a bunch of guys in white lab coats blow down your throat for if people don't catch the crap they fling, they lose all their funding and their jobs.

The difference between God and evolution: both are unproven, but a belief in God is actually called "faith." Do you know what "faith" is? Faith is a belief in something when there is no proof. Both are unproven, but only evolution claims to be what it is not. Evolution is nothing more than faith-based, but it proves to be something factual. Guess what? There ain't any fact in evolution. You're just blindly believing in men in white coats whose job depends on your belief.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by ChocoTaco369]

jesus!!!!!, why are people still into this stuff, the bible the infallable word of god, woooohaha, what a bunch of ignorami, sorry but thats all i'm wasting on this poop

Originally posted by THELONIO
jesus!!!!!, why are people still into this stuff, the bible the infallable word of god, woooohaha, what a bunch of ignorami, sorry but thats all i'm wasting on this poop

I think the video of Kent Hoven is extremely good entertainment.

Is it infallible evidence against evolutionary theory? Not even close.

Originally posted by Solomons
Who said the big bang was the starting point? its more likely our universe is the result of two universe colliding...infinite space...energy cant be created or destroyed and all that jazz,theres infinites amount of universes.

I have my own theory on this, it is far too long to list here again but if you would like to see it, here is a link to the thread where I originally posted it. I call it the galactic toilet. I also believe the universe is finite and not infinite, which I also explain in the theory, in a manner in which I think is reasonable. In all actuality, I think my theory is the most logical answer I have seen, yet I lack the education or tools to prove it mathematically, take a look and tell me what you think.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Mine is the third post from the bottom of page 1.

Although I personally do believe in God, I do not see where evolutionary theory and God can not co-exist. Surely God would not design anything that was incapable of adaptation. The only problem that I see for anyone trying to debunk God is the very violation of the first law of thermodynamics; "Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed." The simple question would be, then where did it come from? Through my theory I can offer a partial answer to that as far as how our universe realized it; however, the very first instant of matter still remains an unexplained mystery.

I can no more prove the existence of God any more than the opposing argument could prove non-existence as non-existence is impossible to prove. And I will not waste anyone's time trying to peddle my beliefs upon them, I respect that most of you do not believe in God, all I ask is the same respect in return. It is really not worth arguing over anyway, we will know who is right after we die, until that point, no-one can prove anything.