Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by BELIEVERpriest
*snip*
1. How do you explain the fact that all primates except for 7% of humans are Rh positive? An Rh negative mother's body will kill an Rh positive fetus, but NOT vise versa. Only modern medicine allows an Rh negative mother to produce and Rh positive child. So if we came from apes, how did it happen without running into the compatability barriers? This type of fetal rejection only happens in the animal kingdom when horses and donkeys produce mules. Nature naturally aborts cross species hybridization. Genesis 6 talks about human genetics being tampered with. Maybe not all of us are 100% human. Doesnt look like an evolutionary mutation to me. More like a natural barrier between similar yet foreign species.
*snip*

I have been interested in that Rh business for some time now. Would you care to elaborate on the "not all of us" being 100% human angle? I think I know what you mean (have some ideas there myself), but would be interested in your explanation.

Originally posted by The GUT
*snip*
If you want to see a secular scientist whine, just bring up paradox. If you wanna see them cry, ask them to explain consciousness.

You and I don't often agree, but you have received three stars, so far, from me in this thread. Very nicely stated points!

Originally posted by AFallingFeather
It is a possibility that meteorites have brought living organisms here on earth.

However that theory does not lie easily to me because, those organisms would not have probably survived. In space while the meteorite is traveling you have to understand that space is cold. The absence of heat rather. Would have frozen these organisms thus killing them

Singled celled organisms have a rather neat way to cheat death and survive the freezing process. They form a cyst; a dormant state of suspended animation which is particularly hardy. Dormant protozoa and bacteria have been found and revived after hundreds of years, and they could potentially stay viable for thousands or even millions of years.

Bacteria and Fungi also produce spores (bacterial spores are called endospores), and these are incredibly hardy, being able to survive extremes of environment, including (but not limited to) boiling and UV radiation.

(more info here - www.scientificamerican.com... )

Finally, there are water bears. If you have not heard of these creatures, they are microscopic segmented animals called Tardigrades that for all intents and purposes are indestructable. They can survive exteme low and high temperatures and pressures, dessication, radiation, you name it.. and in an experiment in 2007 were exposed to the vacuum of space for 10 days. At the end of that time they were retrieved and inspected - most had survived and some had even had offspring in that time.

(more on water bears here - www.mnn.com... )

Basically, the moral of the story here is that life is incredibly tenacious. If it can get a foothold and survive, it will. There are organisms here on earth who thrive in the extreme environments here (such as in and around boiling lava vents deep beneath the ocean, or sulphuric geisers on the surface. In the coldest places like the Antarctic or the hottest like the Sahara). It might seem a stretch for life to survive the harsh environment of space, but don't underestimate it.

And a microbe travelling on a meteor need not be exposed to space itself either. If the rock is porous to some degree (as most rocks are) then it could survive inside, away from the harshness of space..

Originally posted by AFallingFeather
@wmd_2008 We weren't talking about God tard.
We were talking about the theory of evolution being a hoax.

Why is it considered a HOAX because RELIGIOUS people think GOD created man!!!!

As an aside,i'd like to say that this thread thankfully isn't turning into the usual partisan arguements or personal slights that this topic often resorts too.Great stuff and a lot of interesting opinions

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Really???

and

www.nbcnews.com...


Evolutionary divergence for you.

That's adaptation, not evolution. They even state clearly that the DNA shows these to be the same lizard species. Adaptation within a species is a far cry from evolution to a new and different species.

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
How is consciousness faster than light? Prove?

For starters, have you ever seen a light blink on? Not just a headlight mind you, but, say, a laser? I have. Your cognition of that fact should tell you something.

Sorry but by the time you realise the laser is on how far has it's first photons traveled

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
It tells me that after the photons reach the eyes and are transmuted into an electrical/chemical reaction, a part of the brain then interprets this and also applies much of the surroundings from previously stored info, in a way that makes sense, to give us an image which then impinges on our awareness.

So you don't see the light blink on? I admit that, if the light is bright enough, my physical reaction to shield my eyes is much slower. That's the material part. But my consciousness, the immaterial, that which science nor evolution can explain, certainly sees the light amp up.

When I gaze at the stars I don't first experience darkness. That in itself would suggest that consciousness is at least as fast as light. For the "faster" part, reconsider the first bit above.

Evolution, by anyone's standards, is only a partial picture at best. and as such should not be used as a final and total answer. It's certainly as faith-based as any theory when it's used that way.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Sorry but by the time you realise the laser is on how far has it's first photons traveled

How deep is your mind? Can you measure that?

It's sickening that are actually people that believe that evolution is not a fact and that it is postulated by some of the most backed up pieces of information available. Evolution is a fact, how evolution happens is a theory, is it too difficult to understand this? Let's take the most used arguments by "those who don't believe" but are bible gullible until the end.

1. We are missing a lot of transitional fossils:
A: Yes we are. The fact that we have transitional fossil shows that we were different 1 million years ago, the fact that a lot of transitional fossil is a reminder that to have a fossil a lot of requisites need to be met, it's a rare occurring, not a common one. Evolution is a gradual process, it doesn't work in leaps. We needed to have billions of consecutive fossils, by age, to determine the difference and evolution.

2. We haven't changed.
A: Wrong. We are losing our Wisdom teeth and 1st pre-molars. These are the most common affected teeth regarding agenesis. Men are growing less and less fur every generation.

3. There are a lot of hoaxers in evolutionary studies
A: Wrong. There are some hoaxers, but most scientific facts end up having proof on their side. If they don't they'll eventually be discredited. That's how we identify hoaxers.

I guess evolutionary studies are just too much for people that believe that the bible is an actual history book and that Genesis actually tells us how the world started.

Originally posted by The GUT

If you want to see a secular scientist whine, just bring up paradox. If you wanna see them cry, ask them to explain consciousness.

edit on 13-8-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Its called a paradox for a reason, also, this thread isn't about consciousness.

Scientists don't cry when they don't have an answer, they search for it. You might have it backwards, religious people cry when you ask them to explain anything that they can't. Either that or they say god did it.

Originally posted by The only 1 who knows the
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

There is no evolution. Was just a theory. We was created. If there was evolution there should be some evolutionary fossils but there isn't any. I have yet to see any ever discovered.

Are you guys serious? How did our creators come in existence then?

Originally posted by Vandettas
This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Its called a paradox for a reason, also, this thread isn't about consciousness.

Scientists don't cry when they don't have an answer, they search for it. You might have it backwards, religious people cry when you ask them to explain anything that they can't. Either that or they say god did it.

And so, the whining begins.

I personally believe that consciousness does reflect on the topic of evolution. If you can't see that, maybe it does make me the ignorant one. There's also the possibility of the obverse.

Evolution is a hoax? To turn us away from belief in another hoax known as "god"?

Considering that religion has a far more extensive history in forgery, fakery, lies, plagiarism, and the touting of "miracles", we have a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Evolution might not be perfect, and there are still a number of holes in certain parts of the theory. Even then, however, it has far more basis in reality and fact than the superstitious fairy tales of Bronze Age desert dwellers. There is far more basis for humans evolving than there is for humans being created. Out of dust. In case you haven't checked, dust has no DNA. However, chimps do have DNA. DNA that is remarkably similar to human DNA. Evolution isn't purely fossil based. And has much more hard evidence than the nonsense of "creationism".

And given that the Abrahamic god is a homicidal, misogynist, sadistic, hate mongering psychopath, evolution is also a much more moral theory.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Also with regards to fraud there is a long list of CREATIONISTS that have committed fraud with fake fossils artifacts etc.

So, when will we see this list? Surely you have links and evidence to prove that assertion? I keep seeing that claim, and have yet to see the list.

Originally posted by JameSimon
I guess evolutionary studies are just too much for people that believe that the bible is an actual history book and that Genesis actually tells us how the world started.

Your assumptions are showing. Deism is also being proffered here as a balance to the obvious holes in evolution. Not necessarily in total contradiction either. Certainly not as an argument against adaptation. Maybe your argument is too knee-jerk?

Originally posted by JameSimon

1. We are missing a lot of transitional fossils:

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, but I know what you mean.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want. Evolution is backed up scientifically in many many ways. I find it hard to believe someone with half a brain would believe any of the argument the OP makes in this thread. It is somewhat ironic that a study was produced yesterday showing those that do not believe in religion are smarter on average than those that do. Believe what you want.

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time. Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago. The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story. These lines of evidence include: Fossil evidence Homologies Distribution in time and space Evidence by example

Fossil evidence

The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.

Homologies

Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.

Distribution of time and Space

The age of the Earth and its inhabitants has been determined through two complementary lines of evidence: relative dating and numerical (or radiometric) dating. Relative dating places fossils in a temporal sequence by noting their positions in layers of rocks, known as strata. As shown in the diagram, fossils found in lower strata were typically deposited first and are deemed to be older (this principle is known as superposition). Sometimes this method doesn't work, either because the layers weren't deposited horizontally to begin with, or because they have been overturned. If that's the case, we can use one of three other methods to date fossil-bearing layers relative to one another: faunal succession, crosscutting relationships, and inclusions. By studying and comparing strata from all over the world we can learn which came first and which came next, but we need further evidence to ascertain the specific, or numerical, ages of fossils. Numerical dating relies on the decay of radioactive elements, such as uranium, potassium, rubidium and carbon. Very old rocks must be dated using volcanic material. By dating volcanic ash layers both above and below a fossil-bearing layer, as shown in the diagram, you can determine "older than X, but younger than Y" dates for the fossils. Sedimentary rocks less than 50,000 years old can be dated as well, using their radioactive carbon content. Geologists have assembled a geological time scale on the basis of numerical dating of rocks from around the world.

Evidence by Example

Although the history of life is always in the past, there are many ways we can look at present-day organisms, as well as recent history, to better understand what has occurred through deep time. Artificial selection in agriculture or laboratories provides a model for natural selection. Looking at interactions of organisms in ecosystems helps us to understand how populations adapt over time. Experiments demonstrate selection and adaptive advantage. And we can see nested hierarchies in taxonomies based on common descent.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Further
science.jrank.org...
evolution.berkeley.edu...

Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by The GUT
So you don't see the light blink on? I admit that, if the light is bright enough, my physical reaction to shield my eyes is much slower. That's the material part. But my consciousness, the immaterial, that which science nor evolution can explain, certainly sees the light amp up.

No, I mean that the (known) processes of perception are slow in comparison to the speed of light. Whether this mysterious "consciousness" itself can operate faster than light, I don't know. Not sure how you know this, or that consciousness is an "immaterial", without being able to define exactly what it is. Unless you can? That science can't explain it yet, doesn't mean it is automatically the realm of religion. Unless religion can genuinely explain it?

When I gaze at the stars I don't first experience darkness. That in itself would suggest that consciousness is at least as fast as light. For the "faster" part, reconsider the first bit above.

When I notice sunlight, I realise it left the sun at least 8-9 minutes ago, obviously a lot longer for other stars. I guess what I'm saying is that due to perception (in this context) being a passive process ie. with the requirement that photons reach us before we can consciously observe light, how could it be known that our consciousness is faster than it?

The process that occurs when light reaches us might seem quick, but it most certainly isn't superluminal. It's actually much slower than we think.

Evolution, by anyone's standards, is only a partial picture at best. and as such should not be used as a final and total answer. It's certainly as faith-based as any theory when it's used that way.

Perhaps, but it's the only picture we have. No doubt there is much to learn about it, if an alternative were offered that didn't rely on faith alone I'm sure it would be considered.

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by JameSimon
I guess evolutionary studies are just too much for people that believe that the bible is an actual history book and that Genesis actually tells us how the world started.

Your assumptions are showing. Deism is also being proffered here as a balance to the obvious holes in evolution. Not necessarily in total contradiction either. Certainly not as an argument against adaptation. Maybe your argument is too knee-jerk?

What assumptions? That believing a God created us is completely untested and unverifiable? God/Deism doesn't fill any obvious holes in evolution, it's people that tend to say "god created this/did that" when they don't understand/don't postulate on a subject. Evolution is a fact explained by one of the best supported theories ever. God has no business under this discussion.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by JameSimon

1. We are missing a lot of transitional fossils:

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, but I know what you mean.

Yes I don't think I expressed myself the best way I could, sorry.