Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: vasaga

The study is about the beneficial mutations, since they are the ones that are still alive today on earth.

Yes. But if I have a full bath tub, and I want to calculate how much time it took to fill it, I should not forget if it's leaking somewhere. Otherwise the time it takes to fill will never represent reality.

originally posted by: Barcs
The question that the study answered was, 'Is there enough time to account for the evolutionary diversity we see on earth today'. The detrimental are not ignored, they just don't play a role in the diversity of life today, aside from the creature dying out and making way for them.

The fact that they don't play a role alive today doesn't mean that the calculation should not take into account what played a role in the past.

The calculations are based on genes. And genes play a role before any creature is born. And since they play a role before the creature is born, the genes that 'damage' the creature can not be forgotten. If there's a gene that gives a wing (beneficial) and there's a gene that removes feathers (detrimental), the creature will still not be able to fly. By ignoring the gene that removes feathers, we will assume it can fly while it can't. Thus the evolution from running animal to flying animal will take longer than given in the explanation. And with the apparent beneficial mutation, the animal will still get eaten.

If I'm missing something, show it to me, because as of now, I'm not getting your point.

originally posted by: Barcs
According to the scientific calculations, there is plenty of time for the results of mutations that we see on earth today.

The calculations might be right, but if the assumption list is incomplete or wrong, the whole thing collapses.

originally posted by: Barcs
Some folks are so quick to mention "Cambrian explosion" but do not back up their argument with anything whatsoever aside from catch phrases like, "It was so sudden".

Yeah. Just conveniently keep forgetting the long list of scientific papers stating that it was sudden.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Agree2Disagree
.

It's not about more and less evidence. It's about TONS of evidence VS no evidence, and even in a flawed court system where a jury ultimate decides your fate, the side with evidence wins. Evolution HAS the DNA evidence. It is not an ideology, it is a scientific theory. If you were comparing 2 perspectives or philosophies on spirituality you'd have a point, but you're essentially comparing proven science to a belief system which is completely illogical.

I'm only going to respond to this portion of your text, because for the most part I can agree with you.

However, you said tons of evidence VS NO evidence....which as I said previously, no one REALLY believes in anything without ANY evidence at all...There is always SOMETHING that has garnered their belief...

And furthermore, I'm not comparing proven science to a belief system. I'm not comparing them AT ALL. I'm simply stating that both sides have evidence...Which is precisely why I believe both sides...

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

The problem is, we are talking about objective measurable tangible evidence vs subjective evidence. Experiments prove things. Ancient mythology is subjective just like personal experiences that cannot be verified. It is believed by faith, which is often reinforced via indoctrination of kids. Most of the time it's not because the kid had a religious experience or saw evidence of god. They are taught by mommy and daddy that god is real and that they must obey or hell awaits at a young impressionable age, and they develop an emotional connection to it. That is SOMETHING to garner the belief but that doesn't make it evidence.

And don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with believing both, but they are far from equal as far as objective evidence goes. That's what I was trying to convey at least. The courts have already ruled that evolution is a valid science and that ID is not.

sorry double post

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Agree2Disagree
Science isn't a court of law (which is a very flawed system in the first place).

originally posted by: Barcs
The courts have already ruled that evolution is a valid science and that ID is not.

There is good evidence for evolution.

But as I always say, you can't discount evolution unless you have an alternative. That makes no sense. What's the alternative. Until there is a better alternative, that's what we have.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Most of the time it's not because the kid had a religious experience or saw evidence of god. They are taught by mommy and daddy that god is real and that they must obey or hell awaits at a young impressionable age, and they develop an emotional connection to it.

Proof of this? It's an unfounded claim that needs to be trashed...(even though indoctrination can cause some to belief, it is most assuredly not "MOST"...)

There are many factors that attribute to belief in God...religious experiences and empirical evidence can and are 2 examples. Other examples can be, but are not limited to, superstition, anthropomorphism, purpose, fear of death or hope of afterlife, social purposes(togetherness or safety in numbers) or even psychedelic drug usage....

Evolution can also somewhat explain why religion exists...in that a pack of gorillas will have one dominant male that defends and runs the entire pack...He's their god....

Even with all that.....you still cannot dismiss subjective evidence...not when it comes to such a topic as this anyways....

A2D

There is no proof for evolution anywhere.
Namely proof of evolution would be, if we would directly observe transformation from one species into another.
Something like that, has never been observed.
And of course, the reason it has never been observed, is because it never happened, and never will happen.
But you evolutionists - just like the Christians that you like to mock so much - are religious fanatics, and because of that you will not renounce "your faith".
The difference between you and the Christians, is only that you adhere to a different dogma.

a reply to: john666

Yet another creationist who doesn't understand the first thing about evolution.

What a surprise!

originally posted by: john666
There is no proof for evolution anywhere.
Namely proof of evolution would be, if we would directly observe transformation from one species into another.
Something like that, has never been observed.
And of course, the reason it has never been observed, is because it never happened, and never will happen.
But you evolutionists - just like the Christians that you like to mock so much - are religious fanatics, and because of that you will not renounce "your faith".
The difference between you and the Christians, is only that you adhere to a different dogma.

Except you forgot to bring your sources. Here is one you could read.
news.harvard.edu...

Here is a story about a guy who spent 26 years watching bacteria evolve. Thats more than 56,000 generations. If humans avg reprodutive cycle is 20 yrs. that would be the equivalent of 1,200,000 yrs. I think what people can't grasp is the amount of time involved.
If you strip a whale down to it's bones today. You will see that it has fingers and a pelvis. We have also found a lot of fossil whale remains which clearly show these animals used to have legs and could walk on land. Im pretty sure that counts as a change from species to species. What i bet most don't know is that the current scientist have realized that the old taxonomy system is all but thrown out the window. It doesn't make sense given our current knowledge. To deny evolution is to deny biology itself. You are denying genetics. You are denying DNA. You are denying millions of scientific observations in osteology, paleontology, the genome project, EVERY university in the world.

Thats a lot of people that you would have to prove your point to. These people have been working and studying and making observations for about 100 years to bring and show you what we know about biology today. You've heard of all these genetically modified organisms? That couldn't happen if we were wrong about evolution. We can clone animals, Make cats glow in the dark, make goats that produce spider silk, gene therapy, lots and lots more i could go on and on.

I suggest you read a book instead of just popping in and puking your ignorance on the floor and leaving.

What could possibly make you disagree with the only people who would know? What is your alternative assumption?

If we observed larger animals evolving faster then it would prove evolution wrong. The whole idea is tiny changes over a long period of time.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: john666

Yet another creationist who doesn't understand the first thing about evolution.

What a surprise!

Creationists are people who believe in Biblical view of the world.
I, on the another hand, am convinced that the Bible is a book of lies.
But just because the Bible is full of crap, that does not mean, that your evolutionist crap is any better.

a reply to: john666

I see, you fit into another category of willful ignorance then. Call it what you like, but that's what it is.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: john666
There is no proof for evolution anywhere.
Namely proof of evolution would be, if we would directly observe transformation from one species into another.
Something like that, has never been observed.
And of course, the reason it has never been observed, is because it never happened, and never will happen.
But you evolutionists - just like the Christians that you like to mock so much - are religious fanatics, and because of that you will not renounce "your faith".
The difference between you and the Christians, is only that you adhere to a different dogma.

Except you forgot to bring your sources. Here is one you could read.
news.harvard.edu...

Here is a story about a guy who spent 26 years watching bacteria evolve. Thats more than 56,000 generations. If humans avg reprodutive cycle is 20 yrs. that would be the equivalent of 1,200,000 yrs. I think what people can't grasp is the amount of time involved.
If you strip a whale down to it's bones today. You will see that it has fingers and a pelvis. We have also found a lot of fossil whale remains which clearly show these animals used to have legs and could walk on land. Im pretty sure that counts as a change from species to species. What i bet most don't know is that the current scientist have realized that the old taxonomy system is all but thrown out the window. It doesn't make sense given our current knowledge. To deny evolution is to deny biology itself. You are denying genetics. You are denying DNA. You are denying millions of scientific observations in osteology, paleontology, the genome project, EVERY university in the world.

Thats a lot of people that you would have to prove your point to. These people have been working and studying and making observations for about 100 years to bring and show you what we know about biology today. You've heard of all these genetically modified organisms? That couldn't happen if we were wrong about evolution. We can clone animals, Make cats glow in the dark, make goats that produce spider silk, gene therapy, lots and lots more i could go on and on.

I suggest you read a book instead of just popping in and puking your ignorance on the floor and leaving.

What could possibly make you disagree with the only people who would know? What is your alternative assumption?

If we observed larger animals evolving faster then it would prove evolution wrong. The whole idea is tiny changes over a
long period of time.

The e coli in your example are not proof of evolution, because no new species of bacteria were created.

originally posted by: john666
There is no proof for evolution anywhere.

That's rather a tall claim you are making there. Also one that is easy to refute, here you go: Evidence for evolution

Namely proof of evolution would be, if we would directly observe transformation from one species into another.

Please explain why you insist this to be the only credible evidence for evolution? What makes you the decision maker on what is an isn't evidence? Surely the scientists who devote their whole lives to this and are far smarter and knowledgeable about this than you or I would beg to differ with you.

Something like that, has never been observed.
And of course, the reason it has never been observed, is because it never happened, and never will happen.

So what are all these then? List of transitional fossils

But you evolutionists - just like the Christians that you like to mock so much - are religious fanatics, and because of that you will not renounce "your faith".

Give me some evidence that disproves evolution and you might have a point. All evidence so far points towards evolution being true. But of course you don't care to review it. I'm going to bet you won't even click on the two links I provided earlier in this post.

The difference between you and the Christians, is only that you adhere to a different dogma.

That and the sermons, rituals, belief in something without evidence, heirarchy, actually pretty much everything is different between science and religion.

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: john666

Yet another creationist who doesn't understand the first thing about evolution.

What a surprise!

Creationists are people who believe in Biblical view of the world.
I, on the another hand, am convinced that the Bible is a book of lies.
But just because the Bible is full of crap, that does not mean, that your evolutionist crap is any better.

Im just going to assume your not trained in any kind of biology. So what makes you so sure about your assertion? How much literature have you read? What is your alternative hypothesis? Bring sources instead of assertions.

a reply to: john666

It's right there in the very first paragraph.

Since 1988, Richard Lenski has watched E. coli bacteria multiply through 59,000 generations, a span that has allowed him to observe evolution in real time. He also found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species.

Here is richard lenski's home page you can contact him and tell him how he is wrong.
myxo.css.msu.edu...

originally posted by: caballero
what we cant see is god.

I can. I'm what I describe as mystic. You say nonsense? I understand, but you are wrong. It takes a scientific process of self-realisation to make the discovery that for me was triggered by an understanding of the inadequacy of the purely material science that is accepted as fact.

Matter is conflict: we are at war, but the light will be liberated from the darkness (physicists call this decay). We are being subjected to deceit of overwhelming proportions and we are falling further away from an understanding of reality. Evolution is a tiny part of this deceit and shouldn't be focused on so much. Abiogenesis, evolution - and in a more immediate way - the staggering level of organisation that causes our bodies to grow and maintain themselves cannot be described merely with interactions of gravity and electro-magnetism. Purely material sciences describe only actions, not causes.

Your faith in experts will no more lead you to the truth than a religious persons belief in a story, or attendance at church will. We are at war. Mankind is not what we are being told. Society and reality are not what they seem.

'When you know what is truly in front of you, what is hidden will also be revealed. There is nothing that will not become manifest' - Jesus.

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds

originally posted by: caballero
what we cant see is god.

I can. I'm what I describe as mystic. You say nonsense? I understand, but you are wrong. It takes a scientific process of self-realisation to make the discovery that for me was triggered by an understanding of the inadequacy of the purely material science that is accepted as fact.

Matter is conflict: we are at war, but the light will be liberated from the darkness (physicists call this decay). We are being subjected to deceit of overwhelming proportions and we are falling further away from an understanding of reality. Evolution is a tiny part of this deceit and shouldn't be focused on so much. Abiogenesis, evolution - and in a more immediate way - the staggering level of organisation that causes our bodies to grow and maintain themselves cannot be described merely with interactions of gravity and electro-magnetism. Purely material sciences describe only actions, not causes.

Science never claimed to make those claims anyways. It has always maintained that it is an answer to how not why. That is why things like the theory of evolution and god can coexist.

Your faith in experts will no more lead you to the truth than a religious persons belief in a story, or attendance at church will. We are at war. Mankind is not what we are being told. Society and reality are not what they seem.

That's a shame because reality is VERY interesting. Especially the parts we don't understand. Maybe you should try looking at it a bit more in depth. Just like you say that all the answers cannot be reached externally, I can just as easily say that you too are missing the grander picture by only searching inward.

'When you know what is truly in front of you, what is hidden will also be revealed. There is nothing that will not become manifest' - Jesus.

Cool.

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds

I can. I'm what I describe as mystic.

Sorry, for us non-mistics all we have is evolution. I'm not going to debate your belief but how can you lecture us on something we do not have.

Do I lecture a blind person on their inability to understand a sun set? No...

You are the mystic with special abilities to understand and we just need to believe you are right without having your same ability, that doesn't seem fair, does it?

I'm what I describe as mystic. You say nonsense? I understand, but you are wrong. It takes a scientific process of self-realisation to make the discovery that for me was triggered by an understanding of the inadequacy of the purely material science that is accepted as fact.

Well thats great that you used science to come to this idea. So now you can upload all of your data and we can look through it to see this scientific process. Where are your articles you've published? Which universities or private labs have corroborated your findings?

Oh wait, do you have any data? observations? controlled experiments using double blind methods? Or were just sitting around thinking about stuff and figured you couldn't possibly be wrong because you've thoroughly thought about this.

How scientific was your process really?

We don't need faith in experts. They happily publish their work. All of it. We can look at it and follow their procedures. If anything is contestable it is very quickly pointed out. It's kind of the point of science, To show your work. Where's yours so we can look at it?