Question for Evolutionist's

reply to post by Kicking2bears

No, there's no scientific evidence to describe your (and the OP's) strawman version of the theory of evolution. What you're describing isn't evolution, therefore no scientific evidence exists to prove or refute it. Evolution, simply stated, is a change in allele frequency within a given population over time. This has been observed and countless examples of it being observed have been provided in this thread.

I can site one major example for evidence of evolution over creationism.. I must state first that I do not believe in god, but I would never be arrogant enough to assume that he/she/it does not exist in any form.. I can't really prove either way, and neither can anyone else. Therefore I remain open to educated argument either way...

Although I must say... One of the theories does certainly hold considerably more credence with me than the other, purely because I am a creature of reason and logic....

Darwin himself stated that his "theory" was not complete... And there were "some" things he couldn't explain... However, it is the best theory we have so far, based on what little observable evidence we have... Which although is limited, is rather convincing, as others above have undoubtedly proven...

Yeah, it's not complete, but just because we still can't explain some aspects of evolution doesn't mean that we therefore dismiss the whole theory and affiliate ourselves with another "theory", (for that's what religion is to me), which is actually based on no provable evidence, contravenes the laws of physics as we know them in several instances, and teaches us to accept many unlikely propositions while simultaneously informing us that we are not worthy of understanding or questioning them.

Anyway... I fear I may be flogging a dead horse so to speak.. But here we go..

In the human body, the nerve that extends from the back Of the voice box, goes down the neck, round a major ventricule of the heart, then back up the neck to connect to the brain. Now, this route is obviously not logical, and to design this feature, would be ridiculous, and certainly not the actions of an omnipotent being... Now, here's the clincher... This feature is also present in the giraffe, it still has the convoluted route, which is about 6m in this instance! This feature originally comes from fish, and is still present in mammals from when the evolutionary tree split. You see, in fish, his route us actually the shortest route possible for the nerve.

Now, this isn't proof.... But it's certainly strong evidence... Which is all we can provide.

Any comments OP?

PA

Originally posted by jeramie
LOL Wow, a whole lot of posts, but not one single real answer!

Oh yeah, I forgot... it's hard to provide proof for something that isn't true.

I always find 2 things funny when a subject like this comes up (sad, but funny):

1.) People still try to use the fossil layers as an actual argument.

2.) Evolutionists are always so quick to anger.

1. Could it be because that's the only real evidence for either argument....?

2. Because they get tired of talking to people like the OP... it's exasperating!

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

Apart from fossils, which is purely speculative at best. Is there actually any evidence of a mutation in an animal to cause it to become another genus of animal? Say a mouse for some reason has 3 legs, its still a mouse is it not? that would be considered a mutation according to you?

Follow your "speculative" prophets, and we'll follow ours. Then we can both get a long with different beliefs.

Man inked the pages of the bible. Geology preserved the ink of evolution.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Ever heard of Wales and Dolfins? They also have their own language, not even fully understood by men. Their brains are even bigger then ours and they do seem to understand language.

How can one species "turn into" another?
One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.

Look at the birds DNA, it still has dinosaur DNA when 'awaken' will make teeth grow and claws on the tip of their wings..and we are just probing this wonderful world of DNA..
Which means even though a dinosaur is nothing like a bird today, there is valid proof that the bird evolved from the dinosaurs.

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly

Originally posted by jeramie
LOL Wow, a whole lot of posts, but not one single real answer!

Oh yeah, I forgot... it's hard to provide proof for something that isn't true.

I always find 2 things funny when a subject like this comes up (sad, but funny):

1.) People still try to use the fossil layers as an actual argument.

2.) Evolutionists are always so quick to anger.

1. Could it be because that's the only real evidence for either argument....?

2. Because they get tired of talking to people like the OP... it's exasperating!

It's like arguing with a 6 year old over the color of grass -- it gets old quickly because the creationists have no idea what evolution is and they are free to make up facts.

When you are arguing facts that you pull out of thin air arguing gets pointless - The concept of evolution has had over a 100 years to fail as a theory - it hasn't it is an accepted and important basis of much of science, it is getting more and more proof everyday -- and yet idiots believe that they can make up facts and are dismissive or offended when they are called on it.

To not understand the simplest concepts in evolution is to wear you stupid sign proudly and with out shame as you sally forth amongst -- people who paid attention in grade school.

Get over it -- there are fossils!

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by MamaJ

 

You can't prove something like god doesn't exist (proving a negative) so you have to prove god DOES exist. Got any objective evidence?

Using your logic, prove I'm not the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ.

edit on 15-9-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Have you not read my posts?

I have already laid out my "argument" for either a belief or a non belief. You hold onto all of your truths and I will do the same. We are different in many ways... and so I really do not care what you believe or what you do not believe. Why are you so concerned about ME proving MY logic to you. Ha! At the end of the day that is all we have..our INDIVIDUAL logic....so....it is not proof to YOU because YOU do not OWN it.

reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed


www.google.com...,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1366&bih=667&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&sour ce=og&sa=N&tab=wi

Here is a couple of links...you can try it out for starters.

yoy50.wordpress.com...

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Genetics is evolution. Period. If there were no genetics, there would be no evolution. Which means you wouldn't look like your father, and your children wouldn't look like you, and we wouldn't have races. It would be a completely random compilition of features. We wouldn't inherit disease. Whether God or the primordial stew started evolution, if it was God simply putting people on the planet, it would be one generation of random components after another.

So the next time you go to the doctor and find out you have a treatable cancer, refuse treatment because one, most likely it is a genetic mutation or inheritance that caused your cancer, so just let God take care of it for you. Because if it isn't evolution, God gave it to you and he wants you to kick off.

So basically this is his OP:
"Don't show me the textbook evidence proving how evolution trumps religion. Instead, I'll make you answer so it sounds like something based on faith and I'll disregard any shred of evidence against religion."

This thread should be closed immediately. Can people not see the blatant trolling ?
Why is it that he gets one star on every post he makes. Case closed.
You don't even need to go as far as to read the content of his posts. Doesn't take a microbiologist to see that.
People, don't feed the trolls.




Also, his signature is quite comical at its best.

reply to post by spyder550


Then why bother? I agree with you.

Threads like this are absolutely pointless and are created by people who want nothing other than to make a stand for their deluded, entrenched belief systems, for whatever reason, probably to make them feel good about themselves.

I for one am done arguing with creationists, I believe you have a right to believe whatever you want so long as it doesn't harm or interfere with others. Live and let live. Some people want to live in accordance with an archaic book, or rather somebody's interpretation of said book. Let em. Leave em to it. The science is there, it's literally written in stone, and they can't change that.

People need to ignore these threads, or at least avoid becoming embroiled in an argument with a person who has already made up their mind and will never listen to you.

Can't evolution and religion just coexist?

Originally posted by Skorpiogurl
Can't evolution and religion just coexist?

Yes they can, if you take peoples obsession with the bible out of the equation.

Originally posted by KJV1611
More questions. Explain where the sexes came from during evolution?

And for that matter, explain how TWO different "things" evolved from hot rocks, then to goo, then to sea creatures....and they managed to find a sexual partner too?

Explain why if only the strongest survive then why has EVERY CREATURE ON THIS PLANET never evolved to live forever? Every thing dies. So much for natural selection.

How come people are getting stupider instead of getting smarter?

Would just like to point it is not evolutions place to explain how life started just how it evolved after it started.

Evolution does not = survival of the strongest and just in case you have made another common mistake evolution does not mean new = superior.

The fact that every living thing has a begining and an end only adds to the simple truth all life on this planet is linked.

As for people getting 'stupider' its evolution in action. Our enviroment (niche') seems to encourage that trait, unfortunately.

As for I think Mamma J saying the monkey in the zoo she has seen for years has never turned into a man I think that shows a great deal of intelligence on the part of the monkey and of course he would have to regress back to being our common ancestor and then evolve along the same path humans took.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by Skorpiogurl
Can't evolution and religion just coexist?

Yes they can, if you take peoples obsession with the bible out of the equation.

Yeah I hear you. It's ok to be open minded, some people aren't. It's sad.
Science tells me how.
Faith tells me why (sometimes)

Thanks

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


"Also why out of 2 million species is Humans the only one's that developed language, how is this possible?"

First of all, let’s examine what language is…
Verbal Language is nothing more then a series of intonations to help us communicate.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines “Language” as: Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.

So.. With the exception of written symbols, most animals do in fact communicate. And just because you cant/don’t understand what they’re saying doesn’t mean they don’t speak! Humpback whales for example emit very loud tones that travel hundreds if not thousands of miles to communicate with each other. Most mammals as a mater of fact produce tones to reflect or signal their emotions. That would constitute as a language. Granted it may not be as articulate as ours, but never the less a form of communication or Language if you will.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Kicking2bears

 

No, there's no scientific evidence to describe your (and the OP's) strawman version of the theory of evolution. What you're describing isn't evolution, therefore no scientific evidence exists to prove or refute it. Evolution, simply stated, is a change in allele frequency within a given population over time. This has been observed and countless examples of it being observed have been provided in this thread.

I think you must be referring to a concept known as adaptation... which is just a small part of the concept of evolution.

Unless you mean Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" that most "evolutionist" put their faith and belief in? The one that basically says :

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) descent with modification"
www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...

And according to Darwin this process should be continual and ongoing. You should see transitions from all the category of life moveing both up and down the chain as well as within the different categories right?

Life
Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

So to address the OP's original question which asked for some evidence of one Genus changeing to another Genus.

It's a trick question. Genus don't change anymore. (If they ever did.) Species and subspecies can "adapt" to their environment but that often takes generations and at no point do "Canine's stop being Canine's".

But most especially interesting I have never seen evidence of any changes within any category except for species.

The only conclusion I can draw from 13 pages of ATS members avoiding the issue is:

1. If there was ever a time in history when one Genus was capable of becoming a different Genus... that time has passed.

2. Evolution only seems to be continually functional on a species and sub-species level. (Since this is defined as adaptation not evolution it is a major glitch in the theory.)

3. Those who cling to the "Evolutionary Theory" as an explanation for the origin of man exhibit the same level of Faith and Belief as their Religious counterparts. Neither have proof... simply a conclusion based on loosely related evidence.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Go on wikipedia.

Type: Whale Evolution into the search form (or click the link I just posted). You'll see more than just charts, you'll see the fossils themselves in most cases (if not a simple google search will show images of the transitions).

Youtube user Aronra has a great series on the divergence of caniformes and feliformes





Even without direct evidence it would be logically sound to infer that because small changes occur within a population with each successive generation that after many thousands or millions of generations the end result will look quite different.

3. Those who cling to the "Evolutionary Theory" as an explanation for the origin of man exhibit the same level of Faith and Belief as their Religious counterparts. Neither have proof... simply a conclusion based on loosely related evidence.

reply to post by Kicking2bears


Ahhhhhhh....I love it when the truth is finally found. You said in a couple of sentences what I have said in many.

I care where I "came from" but why argue over a theory or a few when we do not KNOW for a fact.

Logic does come in handy when you find your own logic within someone else's.

Ya know, I always wonder on these types of threads why 'Creationists' love to target the theory of evolution so much.

I mean, it all started because of their near literal interpretations of a book written by a people long ago who had a severely insignificant idea of what 'old' was when trying to describe the age of the Earth. They had no adequate frame of reference of the world around them, so they wrote based on that limited understanding.

So why, out of all the scientific theories that describe the age of the universe and the solar system/Earth, Creationists have latched onto evolution, I really cannot fathom. I'm sorry that we've learned that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years or whatever arbitrary number they're using now. Perhaps it's time to revise your theological manuscripts (again) to accomodate these facts. Or perhaps I do know why they choose evolution to pick on...because they feel it's the one that they refute the easiest by dismissing or flat out ignoring the least amount of facts.

Creationists feel that the fossil record, which considering true evolution of species takes millions of years, is all we've really got, can be tossed aside just by saying 'not good enough', but sadly this isn't the case. They say that the only proof they want to accept is to see it with their own eyes, simply because they know that it cannot be shown in such a manner. The closest we can do is show a few mutations where dormant genetic material causes a tail on a creature that normally doesn't have one or redundant systems/leftovers that point to a distant ancestry.

As a disclaimer, I do believe there in a creator, but I would never dream of being so arrogant as to think that some book written by a bunch of ignorant men playing in the sand and then re-written a dozen times by various whims of other ignorant men in power over the years in any way ecompasses what the concept of God is or how creation came to be the way it is today. Hell, it's been said that King James threw out so many things he did not like that the pages he tossed under the scribe's table caused it to raise several inches off the floor. Obviously this would be an exaggeration of course (the paper would spill out from under the table and fill the room before it would lift the table lol)

The best I can say is that if you choose to ignore what has been discovered and choose to not agree with the most plausible conclusions related to those discoveries, that's completely your choice. I would think you would be much better served, however, if you came together as a community and revised your theology to fit with our revised understanding of the Earth and the universe.

Interpreting something literally that was never intended to be such that was written by men who had no means to understand the universe at the time will only lead you into more problems than just the theory evolution.