Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Quadrivium

Give us a scientific definition of the word "kind".

Genus.

a reply to: stuff1

love this thread

S'n'F

Shalom

a reply to: stuff1

(Facepalm) Where do we even start with your list of mistaken beliefs? Ok, here's this - why do you put so much credence in a book of bronze and iron age myths?

a reply to: Quadrivium

Considering genus is an arbitrary man-made boundary, explain the magical mechanism that stops the accumulation of evolution past this point.

a reply to: GetHyped
Magical process?
You asked a question, I answered it.
Just get to your point.
Ask another sensible question and I will give another sensible answer.
If you play nice we may both learn something.
I don't have time for childish games nor know-it-alls.
If you want to debate the "theory" we can do so but it will be done in a civil manner. You have already started out on the wrong foot but we can move past that.
Do not judge me by debates you have had with others, you do not know me, my thoughts or my beliefs.

Quad

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: GetHyped
Explain the process that does.

Are you serious? This is evolution 101. We've covered this countless times in this thread alone. I repeat my question: explain the magical mechanism that stops the accumulation of evolution past this point.

a reply to: GetHyped

Lol, boy you are FAST!
That post was only up for about 30 seconds before I had second thoughts.
No I was not serious. I was being a smart behind because that is how you came accross.
After looking over the post I decided to change it so that we might have a civil discussion.

originally posted by: stuff1
reply to post by IntastellaBurst

 

Attacking me does not invalidate the scientific arguments that I presented. Usually a tactic that is used by people who cannot / will not argue the facts

First off, all of your science is flawed. Second, it's because your reading creationist articles and then regurgitating that nonsense back on here for the world to see.

It's akin to saying you don't believe in calculus because you don't understand it.

I know you don't understand it because none of your arguments are based on actual tenets of evolution. You don't understand the first thing about it. If you haven't taken advanced biology courses then you have nothing to say about it. You should be studying and listening and not preaching what you don't know about.

This stuff is not intuitive. It takes years of study in courses like Biology, Osteology, genetics, archaeology. I'm sure you are not well educated so why do you think you can get on here and trash all of these fields of study like you've intuitively figured it out? Why do all of you creationists refuse to at least read a book on the subject before you start making a fool of yourselves.

Then when someone more knowledgeable comes along and tries to correct you, you ignore them and stick harder to your ignorance.

The truth is you dont know what your talking about. These threads against evolution are the saddest place here on ats.

a reply to: Woodcarver
"All of you Creationists"?
That is a mighty broad brush you are painting with my friend.
Do you know that many scientists believe in some form of Creation?
Evolution is taken as settled science, many times things are not looked at in the way they should be because people believe the science behind it is already settled.
Imagine what we could do if we didn't take answers for granted. Imagine if we opened our minds enough to say "what if?"
I am not attacking the religion of evolution so don't get upset.
I am just saying that many on the evolution side (not all) take what they are told as absolute truth. They seem to have lost a very important part of what it means to be human. They no longer ask how or why or what if even.
We have to keep asking questions. There is so much we don't know.

a reply to: Quadrivium

There's asking questions, and then there's inserting a magic man to explain something.

a reply to: stuff1

Well, no one has actually seen it happen, it takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Fly in a microwave? Did they think it was going to pop out as something different after 3 minutes on high?

a reply to: DAVID64

Yes we have here.

listverse.com...

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: Quadrivium

There's asking questions, and then there's inserting a magic man to explain something.

Well ask your question magic man

Oh my goodness, the fact that you're serious is actually frightening.

Evolution is not an active process. A thing doesn't hold it's breath and out pops and third ear. The thing with an attribute which assists in it's effectiveness or ability to survive is passed on to it's children and on and on throughout subsequent generations.

Survival of the fittest isn't a reference to whoever wins a fight, you know.

Again, if Evolution is wrong, what is the alternative explanation for life, human life on this planet? That's the question. Is it that God or Aliens made us? Perhaps, but what is that theory? Or is this thread just a push for Christian/Biblical Creation?

a reply to: vasaga

Ii believe a person is free to believe as they wish. But, this statement bothers me to some degree:

"You people are always talking about this overwhelming evidence that there is, but it's never presented. It's only repeated like a religious mantra. Link me to this huge list of overwhelming evidence you like to talk about so much. "

It bothers me because it's dishonest on your part. I read the evolutions threads frequently and evidence is constantly put forward and ignored. IF you were interested in a greater understanding of the proof presented for evolution you would simply google/bing or whatever you use for scholarly papers and read them. You have no argument why you have not since your using a computer or phone to post here and they both have the capability. Since I took the time to respond to your post I will help you get started on your research.

Google scholar for biological evolution
Oxford Journals on evolution and molecular biology
Journal of Phylogenetics & Evolutionary Biology

I hope that supplies you with enough resources to show you that there is a massive amount of evidence and you will take the time to read, understand, and research for yourself instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you. I apologize if I came across rude.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs
That is correct and that is adaptation.

No, it's evolution. Genetic mutations directed by natural selection. Adaptation is short term, ie within the same lifetime. If a new ice age started tomorrow, humans that are already alive would have to adapt and change their lifestyle accordingly. That has nothing to do with genetic mutations or longterm survival. I understand asking questions about evolution, but you are attempting to redefine scientific terminology. Adaptation can refer to the long term in evolution, but if genetic mutations are also involved it is evolution by definition.

Take the rabbit and the hare for example.

Ah yes a perfect example of speciation.

Both are in the same family, the same "kind" yet they are different species.
We both agree that long ago their ancestors separated and being apart they speciated/adapted.
As I said long ago, I believe that we have the ability to adapt to our surroundings. Our bodies are able to detect changes in the environment and begin the process of adaptation. All the information is there, in our genes.

Now how did that information get into the genes? Genetic mutation. What is genetic mutation sorted by environmental change? Evolution. We seem to be in agreement, you just refuse to call it evolution, despite it perfectly fitting the scientific definition of the word. There is also no evidence at all that the body would detect environmental changes and mutate the genes accordingly as you seem to suggest. Evolution takes generations upon generations and an environmental change that spares certain genetic lines while killing off the less "fit" ones.

I think you and I were talking the other day about humans and bananas sharing 50 of their DNA.
This is the main problem I have.
No matter the amount of time, I can not see bananas and humans branching of like the rabbit and the hare.
It makes no sense.

Because they didn't branch off like the rabbit and the hare. You're talking about the split between the plant and animal kingdoms, which likely was a cell slightly changing form before either existed. It's not like you have 2 rabbits and one becomes a platypus and one becomes a flower. You are merely looking at the results 2 billion+ years later and can't imagine how it could possibly happen. However, if you looked at the entire history of banana and human evolution there would literally be millions of steps in between. Many folks misconstrue common ancestry to mean that they came from a half banana half human ancestor, but that is not how evolution works. Plus it's illogical to compare a 2 billion year time scale to a 10 million year time scale and expect similar results.

Why do you feel there is a boundary that prevents changes from adding up past the genus level? I just don't see why people put this made up limitation on long term evolution. There's no evidence to suggest it would stop at any point. If the genes keep mutating, the possibilities are endless.

Imagine what we could do if we didn't take answers for granted. Imagine if we opened our minds enough to say "what if?"

Yes, imagine that. The majority of creationists on this site cannot imagine evolution or say "what if" despite it being completely proven aside from minor details. The world would probably be a better place.

a reply to: Barcs

Because they didn't branch off like the rabbit and the hare. You're talking about the split between the plant and animal kingdoms, which likely was a cell slightly changing form. It's not like you have 2 rabbits and one becomes a platypus and one becomes a flower. You are merely looking at the results 2 billion+ years later and can't imagine how it could possibly happen, however you looked at the entire history of banana and human evolution there would literally be millions of steps in between. 

My fault, I know that humans and bananas didn't split like the hare and the rabbit.
What I meant was:
by Evolutionary standards, sharing 50 percent of their DNA, a split had to occure at some point in their past.

So you believe this was most likely a cell split that happened 2+ billion years ago.
That is the problem I am having. The assumption.
How long does speciation take? It can be fast or slow depending on environmental conditions and other outside influence, right?
It is probably fasted in cells than other multicellular life, correct?
So here we are with a group of cells.
For what every reason they split. So you have group A and group B.
Group A after X amout of years start to form multicellular life and will eventually become a type of plant.
All the subspecies in group A, due to the environment in which they live also speciate. These new speicies of our original group A continue to separate and speciate until we have all the plants alive today.
Group B does the same but because of the different environment their path leads to all of the animals we see today.
Both group A and B probably speciated pretty quick in the beginning, as they mutated and began to be more complex the speciation slowed.
Group A would still spiciate faster because they are not as complex as Group B.
After X amount of years many different types of plants spring up, all resulting from Group A.
After X amont of years during and after that many different, more complex animals spring up from Group B
As I said, Group B is probably speciating much slower by this point because they are more complex.
This continues for X amount of years until finally a Creationists is talking to an Evolutionist about the similarities between humans and bananas.
This is just a VERY BASIC generalization of course yet I think it will get my point across.
How could this happen in 2+ billion years?
The one thing that evolutionists like to bring up is actually working against the theory. TIME.
2+ Billion years is an extremely large amount of time, yet when you think of all the speciation that had to occur between then and now it dwindles those years down pretty fast.

a reply to: Quadrivium
Would it be fair to say that from the end of the dino's appx 65 million years ago there has been substantial amounts of speciation? If you do agree that is true then perhaps a little perspective on your 2+ billion years. 2 billion divided by 65 is 30.769. Which would mean that a massive amount has the ability to have happened 30-31 times. To me that's quite a bit of time that can't really been seen as trivial or fast. Just a thought I had when I read your post.