Question for Evolutionist's

Here is the fastest observed evolution:
en.wikipedia.org...
This is what made me an evolutionist. Yes, there are exceptions, like God messing with evolution just to mess with our heads.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by josh2009s

 

Like i said if this is true:

The change takes place over a long amount of time in slight increments.

Then why do we not see plants with growing legs???

It takes long amount of time right? well the world's been around milions of years according to the evolutionist, so we would atleast see this process taking place over time, yet not one plant has acquired intelligence or limbs.

Lets say for example that evolution is correct. What makes you think that if evolution is correct that a tree would ever grow legs?

You reject transitional fossils? Whats wrong with those? Those are obvious evidence. Its like saying "well we have Mr. 'RevelationGeneration's' skeleton here but well he never existed I mean come on this is just a skeleton we don't see him running around here so therefore he never existed, and this skeleton of his is just speculation.

I mean of course! God put all of these fossils in the ground when he created the earth just to confuse us and make us believe that there might be something called evolution! Thats it!

I had an argument with a Creationist one time. He said that he believed in micro evolution but not macro evolution. Well of course he would have to have it this way, because evidence for micro evolution is irrefutable.

But, like I told him. macro evolution is cause by micro evolution. Evolution is evolution. Period.

If small changes are occurring then there you go bang there is your proof. If God Made things the way they are then Why do we observe changes? We do actually observe real evolution, real changes.

Evolution is evolution even If we cannot see the macro changes (because our lifespans are too short) we do see micro evolution what more do you want?

Evolution is undeniable we observe it in the labs and in our environment it has been proven. The fact that you cannot observe one genus changing into another (because you don't live long enough) doesn't mean a damn thing and proves nothing to the contrary.

Evolution is evolution micro or macro there is no difference.

Is one species changing into another species good enough? If not then why not?

Here is PROVEN EVOLUTION.

Natural selection's fingerprint identified on fruit fly evolution Researchers at the University of Rochester have produced compelling evidence of how the hand of natural selection caused one species of fruit fly to split into two more than 2 million years ago.
The study, appearing in today's issue of Nature, answers one of evolutionary biologists' most basic questions--how do species divide--by looking at the very DNA responsible for the division. Understanding why certain genes evolve the way they do during speciation can shed light on some of the least understood aspects of evolution.

"The study of speciation has a reputation for wild speculation because every time we find a curious genetic element, we suspect it of causing speciation," says Daven Presgraves, lead author on the study and postdoctoral fellow at the University.

"We know embarrassingly little about a core process in evolutionary biology, but now we've nailed down the exact sequence of a gene that we know was involved in keeping two species separated.

We can see that it was natural selection that made the gene the way it is."

The study breaks ground in two ways: First, it's the first time that a gene known to be involved in speciation has had its DNA fully revealed. Presgraves and colleagues found 20 regions that differed on the chromosomes of two species of fruit flies that were estimated to have diverged in evolution 2.5 million years ago--fairly recently in evolutionary terms.
He then needed to find a gene in one of those regions that was responsible for preventing successful reproduction between the two species. If the species could reproduce, then they could swap genes back and forth and thus would not be truly separate species.
Something would have to prevent the transfer of genes, and in the case of Presgraves' fruit flies, that something was the proclivity for hybrid larvae to die before maturing into adults.
He found his gene, called Nup 96, that always prevented a hybrid of the two species from living to reproduce, and he sequenced its DNA.

"We're seeing a gene responsible for speciation at the maximum possible resolution," says Presgraves. "It's as if we had a map and could once zoom in on a city, but now we've zoomed in on the exact address."

Link

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

you can contact the evolutionary scientist here personally if you wish to attempt to discredit their findings.
Contact: Jonathan Sherwood
[email protected]

University of Rochester



-Alien

reply to post by MamaJ


That's yet another logical fallacy. Hinging an argument based on the 'fact' that science uses hypothesis and theories.

A hypothesis does not become a theory without a lot of facts to support it. Evolution itself, as with all theories, will probably never be listed as a 'fact', but it doesn't make their conclusions any less valid because they have many 'facts' to support them. Any rules derived from a theory are described as laws.

If you wish to follow such an argument, all I can tell you is that you'd better buy a ton of velcro for yourself and any possessions you care about. Gravity is only a theory after all.

If creationism were true and evolution was incorrect then we would see 40ft tall catagators, mice with wheels for feet and so on and so on

Originally posted by Dashdragon
reply to post by MamaJ

 

That's yet another logical fallacy. Hinging an argument based on the 'fact' that science uses hypothesis and theories.

A hypothesis does not become a theory without a lot of facts to support it. Evolution itself, as with all theories, will probably never be listed as a 'fact', but it doesn't make their conclusions any less valid because they have many 'facts' to support them. Any rules derived from a theory are described as laws.

If you wish to follow such an argument, all I can tell you is that you'd better buy a ton of velcro for yourself and any possessions you care about. Gravity is only a theory after all.

Suit yourself.....if you want to argue and have the blind lead the blind then go to the mirror or someone else...

You say a hypothesis does not become a theory until a lot of "facts" support it. Whose facts? Mine or yours?

In my opinion there is no argument that can be had that will lead to a Truth in this regard. There is no PROOF.


Also....would you like for me to tell you what you better do if you follow such an argument as you did with me? I can.

Evolution is a THEORY! Nobody claims that it is 100% factual, they leave that for the religiously fanatical loons who could be proven wrong by the knowledge of a child in the first grade.. That being said...

The Appendix:

An organ that most people think is completely useless, used to be used for digesting bark. Unfortunately, the rest of a human's digestive system wouldn't be able to handle the likes of most barks, so it's hard to believe that the organ was ever used in the human body for such digestive actions. After thousands of years of not digesting bark, the appendix has reassigned itself a function: it stores bacteria and fluid as a "back-up" digestive resource for anytime you might have something like diarrhea, it can repopulate the gut with the bacteria it needs for proper digestions after it has been flushed out of the body. Although it's digestive functionality is rather limited to that these days, the strange organ, for some people, will still collect small seeds and other rough, potentially pointy objects in the intestines (objects that would not have dissimilar effects of bark) and attempt to break it down. This is how a lot of people get appendicitis, because their appendix is so un-exercised that dealing with a large amount of these objects can overload it and cause an infection. I think that the organ is in the transition stage of evolving its function entirely to adapt to modern lifestyles and eating habits. It would explain why some people's appendixes don't collect small, rigid objects at all and some people's are zealous enough to explode themselves trying to extract them.

On a footnote, thanks for the typically creationistist laugh-and-a-half from this thread and its "content" and "evidence" that you offer so kindly, OP.... (Oh wait... You've got nothing).

It's not uncommon for the blasphemously religious to pretend that everyone has to prove "their points", yet whenever they are asked for proof they just say "YOU CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG!" and then present a throng of pretentious, "way-out-there" walk-arounds to support the conclusion that they have been adhering to since they were children.

This is why we cannot ever have science and religion coexist peacefully 100% of the time. Science provides facts for the truth that blatantly exists; literal religion fabricates truth and has the arguments surround the initial conclusion and instead of acknowledging extremely high-ratio probability for an argument against something, they write it off as a "non-fact" -- and of course at all times being blissful in the fact that their entire self-labeled lifestyles and belief systems are based on very, very, very improbable "non-facts".

Also, that's a rather embarrassing use of the Apostrophe in this thread title. Also not atypical of certain groups.. Perhaps you should do some research on pluralization and writing in "the possesive". Your thread title suggests that you are asking a question to "An evolutionist's ______". What evolutionist? What of his/hers would you like to ask a question to?

OP=Troll. why is anyone bothering?

Evolution=real, bible=fairy tale.

This is why we cannot ever have science and religion coexist peacefully 100% of the time.

reply to post by Partisanity


While reading your post I could not help but to notice the bias and rant in your writings of words. Yet....you want to blame others for not being able to coexist peacefully. You will never be able to get along with anyone if you speak as you did in this post. Just sayin'.

reply to post by MamaJ

The statement I presented was completely true. Science and religion will never peacefully coexist. I don't see how that's "harsh" or in need of some finger-wagging. Unless you're defending the blatant blasphemy in this thread and gluing my "attacks against it" it to "anti-religion", in which case I would reconsider which of us is being "biased".

Theistic evolution. Works for me.

reply to post by Skorpiogurl


Of course, it works with a lot of people. It's not impossible to be Christian, even Catholic, and believe in evolution. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that the loony minority of the religious community will never allow science to be carried out peacefully so long as it occassionally disproves parts of their religion. That's when they make internet accounts and try to turn it into a "us vs. them" construct. It's always a rather silly endeavor but entertaining if not to say the most.

Originally posted by Partisanity
reply to post by MamaJ

 

The statement I presented was completely true. Science and religion will never peacefully coexist. I don't see how that's "harsh" or in need of some finger-wagging. Unless you're defending the blatant blasphemy in this thread and gluing my "attacks against it" it to "anti-religion", in which case I would reconsider which of us is being "biased".

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

I know you're not addressing me but for the record, I didn't think it was harsh. You're right, most people only see black or white.

Originally posted by Partisanity
reply to post by Skorpiogurl

 

Of course, it works with a lot of people. It's not impossible to be Christian, even Catholic, and believe in evolution. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that the loony minority of the religious community will never allow science to be carried out peacefully so long as it occassionally disproves parts of their religion. That's when they make internet accounts and try to turn it into a "us vs. them" construct. It's always a rather silly endeavor but entertaining if not to say the most.

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

Agree

reply to post by Kicking2bears


You say:

"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."

Can you show me the ".....loosely related evidence." That the "creationists" have provided?

The "evolutionists" have provided tons evidence and not just evidence but proof. The "creationists" have provided zero, zip and zilch.

-Alien

Evolution as theory and fact:

The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model of a portion of the universe that generates propositions with observational consequences. Such a model both helps generate new research and helps us understand observed phenomena.

When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.

Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with all living organisms.

All the rest, and I do advise to read it, can be found here:
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by dragonseeker
OP=Troll. why is anyone bothering?

Evolution=real, bible=fairy tale.

Dragonseeker = you are too funny... (if nobody should bother why did you bother?)

Adaptation=scientifically accurate=real
Evolution=maybe (lacking proof)

Bible=historically accurate=real
Divinity of Jesus=maybe (lacking proof)

hmmm.... go figure... Again with the Faith and Belief... Ain't human nature grand?

reply to post by Alien Abduct

Probably the greatest proof that the creationist cling to is the historical accuracy of many people, places and events found in the Christian Bible.

However, this won't prove creationism any more than adaptation proves evolutionism.

Is that what you were asking? I can dig up some of the evidence and U2U it if you like... but it's not "proof" of anything except that most of those people/places/events actually existed/happened.

(Send me a U2U if you want, it might take me a little while and this isn't really the forum for it.)

Being a "Evolutionary Creationist", Evolution died with the dinosaurs...

As little as we know about evolution, these creatures could very well have started as a fish and ended as a monstrous lizards, throughout their hundreds of thousands of year life spans.... Considering the planet was different, and everything was greater, bigger planet, bigger animals, bigger plants all more than double in size, different characteristics of "time", geometric pressure, gravity... the list goes on....

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Thank you for those video links.

Is evolution observable? Yes, yes it is. The modern equivalent is the chihuahua. Or I suppose the real question is... Did every dog breed spontaneously appear? How do you go from wolf to pekinese?

Another question I have for you is... Is God a wizard? Silly question? Not at all. You see, the world we live in follows measurable scientific principals. If this is the case, then God setup these rules. God made an ordered, measurable Universe. Now you wish us to believe that after creating an ordered universe, God just ignored the laws of science and just made stuff appear?

Another thought, If God created science, and you say science is wrong, aren't you saying God is wrong?