jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (420 posts)

Flaws in evolution!

  1. aka-dj profile image78
    aka-djposted 3 years ago

    I mentioned the phrase "flaws in evolution" in the context of challenging the constant assertion by may that evolution is a proven well understood and accepted fact, as opposed to a flawed theory.

    Proponents of evolution in Hubpages don't like facing these issues, as it messes with their doctrine.
    Like hypocrites, those they ridicule for their faith in God, (et all), yet they themselves engage in biased, self serving dogmas, without honestly acknowledging the (most obvious) flaws.

    One MAJOR flaw, staring them (us) in the face is the helplessness of adaptation, mutation and rise of new species to compensate for the rate of extinction now being measured, and quantified, as (as many experts assert) is now beyond the equilibrium.

    IE, we are loosing more than we are gaining.

    Mind you, these "experts" dont even know what the rate of "gaining" is, or was.

    So, lets just look at the FACTS.

    We can measure/estimate the number we lose, because we knew we had them.
    We cannot measure newly evolved species, because we have not observed ANY!
    Please don't confuse that with, we have not discovered any, because we are discovering many all the time.

    Here are just two sites for reference.

    http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/prog … on_crisis/

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … ies-evolve

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not quite sure how an example of species that cannot effectively compete in a changing ecological niche is a flaw in evolution.  Rather, it would seem to be more evidence of the viability of that theory.

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      An example of animals evolving before our eyes?

      The horse, donkey and the zebra.

      The lion and tiger.

      antibiotic resistant bacteria.

      Humans.

      Just of the top of my head.

      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8079373_f248.jpg


      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8079367_f248.jpg

      1. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        ?

        So. That's your answer for evolution.
        The rise of new species. hmm

        I guess you refuted my OP flawlessly. lol




        So, where are all the experts?

        Probably went to church, since it's sunday. lol

        1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
          tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Antibiotic resistant germs,  isolated from antibiotics for a while, cease to be antibiotic resistant.  This is a good reason why hospitals should be torn down and rebuilt periodically.

      2. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Wow.  Just to be clear, your using photos of who?  Aborigines?  And they are your examples of human evolution happening before our eyes?  Because of their color?  Because of their height?  Are you saying they are more or less evolved than others?  Please explain your "evidence."

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You guys don't see the adaptation that takes place when left in isolation?

          the horse and the donkey and the zebra? All can still produce offspring just no viable offspring.

          the lion and the tiger. Both adapted to different environments with a different social structure and can still produce viable offspring.

          bacteria evolving to a new hostil threat.

          No animal is more evolved then another. That statement shows you don't know what you are talking about.

          1. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You didn't answer any of my questions, although I guess you did try and address my request that you explain your evidence, by giving examples of adaptability, but I am not sure what that has to do with the theory that man was ever anything but man. 

            So now, please tell me, what about the Aborigines?  What were you eluding to with them?  Is that where the answer is?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ignoring the semantics problem of a man that isn't a man, you would have to define man in a manner consistent with biological definitions and not just anything with a soul.  At that point a "man that isn't a man" can be found, or at least the remnants of such a creature.  You might start with Neanderthal or even homo habilis, depending on your definition

              1. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Earlier speculation regarding Neanderthals led to wild interpretations, which have only fairly recently dissipated in favor of less sensationalism.  Please take a look at more recent reconstructions than those stereotypical images the name brings to mind for many of us, because of what we were shown in school.  I think I've seen these folks at Wal-Mart. 
                http://www.daynes.com/en/reconstruction … erthal.php

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You understand how different they were then us right? They arrived in Europe about 400 000 years before humans and appeared to lack our creativity as well as our long childhood development.

                  1. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I am aware of many of the interpretations and conclusions made to incorporate facts and hard evidence available regarding "early man".  Do I consider these conclusive?  No, but it is always interesting to see and consider the speculations scientists apply to their findings. 

                    Perhaps we could conduct our own anthropological study into the utilization and application of hard facts by scientists and how their conclusions align with their own preconceived notions and academic indoctrination, when other interpretations would be just as viable.  Might be interesting.  Do you think I could get a grant?

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I take reconstructions, particularly the fleshy and surface areas, with a giant grain of salt.  I remember the old ones, covered in hair for instance - what has been the determining factor in making these ones virtually hairless in comparison?

                  Be that as it may, however, are you suggesting that Neanderthal was human?  Not homo sapiens, obviously, but "man"?  The last I heard they had no spoken language - missing the physical requirements for speech they couldn't.  Diet was considerably different (caused by difference in dentition) and likely the digestive system as well.  Needless to say there are other differences.

                  If Neanderthal is "man" then I'm looking for something else - something close to man, but not man, that evolved into man.  When found, the question becomes exactly where the creature became "man" and that creature becomes proof of evolution's viability.  But without your agreement as to which ancestor was not man, we cannot show anything.  Was homo habilis (our direct ancestor) "man" in your opinion?

                  1. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness, I was not drawing a conclusion, but rather casting doubt because I don't believe science has the information required to make the conclusions it does.  Based on your previous posts, I know you hold science and scientists in high, almost reverent regard.  You have made comments about their superior intellect, inferring (or at least that was my impression), that they should be allowed artistic license, since the result of that would likely have merit.  I am not similarly impressed, and therefore not compelled to give their findings the weight you do, particularly in areas where interpretation plays a major role. 

                    I know first hand that science's ability to analyze and then exploit what I consider to be God's creation, in an effort to improve our existence has, and continues to produce fantastic results.  I am a huge fan of this.  I have mentioned I have a daughter with multiple disabilities, including ones that are perpetually life threatening.  After over two decades of working very closely with the medical community it is clear to me that even at the level that science hits the streets, it must be closely watched and considered, when applied.  Without it, we would never have had a chance, but had we put our faith entirely in the experts, we would have lost her long ago, on multiple occassions.  With such a complex kid, we never assume anyone is right, and that diligence has proven critical several times over the years.  Needless to say, tensions have run high between us and the medical community, but recently, out of respect for over 20 years of success with a most difficult case, they have begun to warm up to us.

                    Regarding your questions of "early man," I believe there has been man, and some adaptation has taken place with us.  There have been primates, some of whom undoubtedly are extinct.  Which each sample represents could perhaps be determined with objective research, or perhaps it would require data we don't have access to.  It is far from proven.

                    When science starts speculating about origins, like it or not, it is nearly impossible for them not to be influenced by their own philosophical views, since facts alone can't paint the picture.  This results in making clear inferences, if not drawing actual conclusions, the facts don't exclusively bear out.  I believe our origin, (meaning how this all got started), is a venue science can't legitimately speak to.  It is easy to get caught up in some of their reasoning, and I even enjoy doing so on occasion.  I often have wondered, if you washed the scientific record with an acid that eroded away all but the hard evidence and gave it to truly objective analysts, what conclusions would they draw?  Perhaps you have confidence that this is what has been done.  I don't share that confidence.

          2. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            My wife and I love dogs.  Unfortunately, our daughter is afraid of them, so we can't have one.  If we could, it would be a Chinook. Fascinating breed, embodying all the qualities I would look for in a dog.  Of course, this breed is new, as breeds go, having only been registered and recognized by the AKC back in 1991.  I don't really consider the creative exploitation of the incredible adaptation God engineered into living organisms as evidence for one kind of animal somehow becoming another. 

            So, please tell me how three different types of horses, two different types of cats, and however many types of bacteria prove man, (or any organism), evolved from anything else?  I do agree with your last statement, that no animal is more evolved than another...., because none of them are evolved in the way you mean.  They have just adapted, and calling that adaptation "evolution" provides the only shred of credibility the term can lay claim to.  Take away the adaptability within kinds and what do you have?

            How have you illustrated by any of this that I don't know what I am talking about?  And please...do tell me about your point with the Aborigines.  You have me curious.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You asked for an animal that is becoming another and I gave you the horse, donkey and the zebra. All three have adapted to a new environment, look different, can still breed, but the genetic difference no longer allow the offspring to be viable. In other words they can no longer become one species. There are numerous examples of what you asked for.

              As for humans, the evidence is overwhelming in favour of a common ancestor with other great apes. Genetic and fossil records are a good start. There is no reason to lie, why would you think one would?

              Now you've implied twice that my motives for showing the differences in humans that have adapted to a different environment was racially motivated. I don't appreciate that and it wasn't me who implied one was more evolved then the next. Don't make that mistake again please, I'm not a racist and I don't like the implication and I had already explained why I used the photo.

              1. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Actually Rad, I didn't ask you for anything initially.  I was responding to your response to aka-dj, but had I asked for examples of evolution in motion, none of these would have been even slightly compelling.  That's okay, because I have asked for this before, have studied the theory off and on for over 30 years, and had my nose rubbed in whatever example the person I happen to be discussing with feels is significant, and frankly none of those were compelling either.  What would be?  Anything that indicated something transcending basic adaptability.  If such evidence exists, it has eluded my investigations and those of all the folks who have attempted to enlighten me, as well as those preparing the documents and web sites I am constantly referred to in an attempt to free me from the perceived bonds of the "scientific illiteracy" that anyone disagreeing with evolution is believed, by some, to be afflicted with. 



                I am not really concerned with the theory-de-jour, but last I heard I thought many scientists were distancing themselves from the ape s**t.  Childish, I know, but I couldn't resist.  wink  Anyway, I know science is not in agreement on who the ancestors would have been.  As for lying, I don't think you are.  I think you believe this stuff.  I think it is what your super-ego wants...perhaps even needs... to be true.



                I made no mistake.  Your choice to incorporate those images the way you did made a clear implication nobody could miss.  I'll not apologize for your poor choice, even if you clarify, (as you should), that it is not representative of your view.  I made no direct accusation, but rather asked questions which provided you with an opportunity to clarify your position.  So clear was the impression left by your presentation, that I felt you might want to address it.  My repeated inquiry was the result of your initial lack of response.  Your post was at best, a very unfortunate and insensitive choice.  Do you disagree?

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm sorry you are unable to comprehend evolution. I guess the fossil records, genetic records and the various methods of dating are not sufficient for you as you've go the bible telling you dinosaurs must have existed along side humans a few thousand years ago. I only bother trying to help you because I can't believe what I'm reading.

                  The horse, donkey and zebra are a perfect example of what you are looking for. They are no longer the same species and yet they were, had to be. And now no longer able to reproduce viable offspring.

                  Why do you think it's racist to show a picture of how humans have adapted to environments? Tell me are you one of the people who think humans were made by God about 5 or 6 thousand years ago as described in the OT? If so those pictures show a rather massive adaptation within just a few thousand years don't you think? Discussing human adaptation does not make anyone a racist, unless as you said it implied one group was more evolved. You said that, I didn't. I've addressed this every step of the way. Look back and read. If you again imply I'm a racist, we will be done.

                  1. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'll do you one better, Rad.  It is true I was offended by what I felt was a clear implication of your post, whether intended or not, and this is what motivated my response.  Perhaps I succumbed to a degree, to the very political correctness I have come to abhor.  I don't think my sensitivity was incorrect, nor that a response was not warranted, but in rereading the exchange I do understand your intent with the posting.  I have never found you to be racist, and I have read many of your posts for some time now.  I should have considered that and simply pointed out my concern to you while avoiding the implications.  For that I do apologize.

                  2. bBerean profile image60
                    bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It really does get tiring.., all this "sorry you are unable to comprehend", and "scientifically illiterate", etc.  Really?  If you cannot glean from my prose a hint of my intellect which would negate those accusations, then so be it.  Paint me as the simpleton and dolt it seems you consider any believer to be.  As with evolution though, you may find it a difficult premise to support when the dust settles. So then perhaps the super ego or indoctrination?  No, but I should grant leeway here, since I tend to have the same suspicions regarding atheists.   


                    I leave the issues you inquire about on the table because at this point it would be what I affectionately call, arguing from the middle.  Our perspectives are so divergent that employing the same approaches at understanding each other as we have been seeing in the forums is bound to only result in the same pointless and circular arguments.  I have an idea and approach in mind that may well be no more successful, ( I have reason to have my doubts), but there are a few here, including Wilderness and yourself, with whom at some point I might like to try it.  For now, however, I think this OP warrants indulging.  What comes out here may well serve as a good foundation for the future conversations I've eluded to.

                  3. aka-dj profile image78
                    aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    (italics mine)
                    Now I find this rather curious.

                    You consider these changes "radical" in the space of (say) 6000 yrs.

                    Then why is it so incredulous to think the same (extremely complex) human could evolve from slime in a mere few billion?

                    This evolutionary thread exists only in the imaginations of humans. Certainly not in any fossil records.
                    And even MORE certainly not in measurable scientific method.

              2. OgreKing profile image79
                OgreKingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Actually, all of this so called fossil evidence could be layed out on a standard pool table. I take it you haven't heard that many so called "important finds" in the previous early century have been proven hoaxes?

                BTW, the hyoid bone is a complete mystery. It has no known point of origin, nor does it exist in any known ancestor or even relative. This massive evolutionary leap simply appeared within the population within 25000 years. We know this to be impossible but have no explanation. Most science simply looks away.
                There are, however, two possibilities that would explain it. The first is that our carbon dating (and possibly other methods related) is massively wrong. There seems to be mounting evidence to this conclusion. There is a mountain of evidence that radio decay slows and speeds depending on local and space phenomena, sometimes to a very large degree.

                The second, and again, there is mounting evidence, is genetic manipulation. The evidence in this case is forensic, anecdotal, and scientific, and there is no physical evidence. However, when you consider that this manipulation would be dated to approximately 225000 years ago, exactly what would be expected to survive?

                I personally believe we will probably never know our origin in it's entirety. I believ that the truth will be much stranger than fiction, and even the super aliens will have to acknowledge the hand of a divine force in guiding our development.

    3. 0
      riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      From this post, it's obvious that it is not well understood. The only point for debate is whether it is the lack of intelligence or simply the unwillingness to understand.

      1. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, it's an unwillingness to learn.

        Are you ignoring all the flaws too?

        1. 0
          riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Just because you take logical contradictions as facts and just because you cannot understand(it is "understand" not learn), doesn't mean others have the same problem.

        2. 0
          riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "Understand" is not "learn"

          1. aka-dj profile image78
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            To understand, you must first learn.

    4. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

       

      Gravity, relativity, laws of thermodynamics, cosmic expansion and the laws of planetary motion are all theories like evolution, but don't be fooled by the term 'theory'. In science, 'theory' indicates the highest level of certainty. It means that there is overwhelming supporting evidence for a particular hypothesis.

      Facts are the observable and objectively verifiable phenomena these hypotheses try to explain. If an hypothesis is well substantiated, by which I mean it has been repeatedly confirmed through experiment and observation, then it is considered a scientific theory and generally (tentatively) accepted as accurate. All of the above are well substantiated.

      The fact that alternative hypotheses can (and are) conceived does not indicate that an existing theory is inaccurate. The accuracy of a theory is determined by measuring its ability to make accurate predictions about a phenomenon. As it stands, evolution is currently the most substantiated explanation of changes in the inherited characteristics of biological organisms over time. So the theory of evolution is not a fact, but by any scientific measure, the theory of evolution is the most accurate explanation of the relevant phenomenon, and is therefore (tentatively) accepted as accurate.

      1. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Standard evolutionary apologetic rhetoric.

        Heard it all before.
        Theory is theory, redefining it does not help your cause, and certainly does nothing to convince me.

        You can save the skin on your fingerips, typing all this text.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image83
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ever since the Scientific Method was founded, a theory has always been the highest proof of science (just one step under Laws and Mathematics), and aside from evolution, other theories include heliocentrism, cells, the Big Bang, the wave theory of light, and relativity.

          Theory is theory. Redefining it does not help your cause, and certainly does nothing to convince me.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If you've heard it all before, why haven't you verified the meaning of the term "theory" in science and stopped treating it as a pure guess, similar to creation "theory"? 

          You now know you have misunderstood the meaning of the term when used in the world of knowledge and science; it would seem best to use it properly in search of better communication.

        3. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not redefining anything. These are the terms used in science. We tentatively accept, as scientific theory, those hypotheses we can prove are the most accurate, and we tentatively discard those others. That's how a body of scientific knowledge is built.

          Discarding an existing theory despite the absence of anything that can be proven to be more accurate, is not reasonable scientific judgement. Likewise, adopting a new hypothesis despite an absence of proof that it is more accurate than the existing theory, is not reasonable scientific judgement.

          So discarding the theory of evolution would only be reasonable if an alternative hypothesis is scientifically proven to be more accurate, and if it is equally or better substantiated. No such alternative hypothesis exists. Therefore the theory of evolution remains the most accurate and substantiated explanation of the relevant phenomena, and we tentatively accept it as correct.

        4. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe the problem is that there is some lack of understanding of the definition of a theory.

          A theory is:

          the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another;

          the general or abstract principles of a body of fact;

          a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena;

          a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject.

          Theory is not a guess or an untested hypothesis.

          Theory results from testing hypotheses.

    5. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, evolution is well understood as fact for anyone who actually understands it. This thread is ample evidence of someone with little to no understanding of evolution.



      Yes, we already know you believe evolution jeopardizes your religious beliefs and that lashing out is all one can muster when they are deplete of the facts.



      First of all, the extinction of species has nothing to do with validating or refuting the understanding, the facts and  the evidence of evolution. That is a laughable red herring.

      And secondly, you show well beyond a doubt no understanding of evolution when you make the silly assertion that we have not observed any newly evolved species.

      And, to answer your next question, no, monkeys will not evolve into humans overnight.

      Why is this thread in the Education and Science forum?

      1. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Evolution cannot be understood, because it never happened.

        Sure, you can claim to understand the theorised process, but only in it's most simplistic form.

        You apply the real world reality to the theory, and it fails the test.

        Keep believing your science fiction, if it keeps you happy

        1. Disappearinghead profile image90
          Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this
          1. aka-dj profile image78
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Two can play that game.

            http://youtu.be/8tyVVlRw6hU

            Mines definitely better than yours.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Is that a joke? You do realize the author of that video has basically created the same 747 assembled in a junkyard argument comparing the gene with a computer. Another dishonest believer who doesn't understand evolution.

              1. aka-dj profile image78
                aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's great.
                You understand he hypothesis of evolution.
                I have no problem understanding it either.

                That does not equate to, it is fact.

                So, the human genome, went from bacteria, to it's current state, all by random chance.

                As I said, science fiction.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image83
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, here's absolute proof that you don't understand evolution--you think it's random chance. In fact, it's the exact opposite of random.

                  If you look back even to Darwin's observations about the same species of finch growing different beak shapes based on where they lived, you would have to be blind, deaf, dumb, and mentally deficient to possibly believe that their beak shapes changing to match their environment was caused by random chance.

                  Evolution is simply the passing on of superior adaptations and/or physical traits (the mating game also heavily influences evolutionary changes) from parent to offspring. Given enough time, entirely new breeds and species appear.

                  It only took us ~3000 years to turn the wolf into your adorable little shih tsu. And also, we constantly have to upgrade our medicines because bacteria and viruses adapt too quickly to them. Not only is that evolution in action, but it's evolution set on fast-forward.

                  1. aka-dj profile image78
                    aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There's another flaw in  your argument.
                    Wolves have NEVER evolved into shih tzu!

                    Man made them.

                    It would be interesting to think that a shih tzu has something beneficial, or superior over a wolf in the wild, necessitating evolutionary change.

                    As for virus, or bacteria adapting to medicine, well, we haven't seen any bacteria become anything BUT a bacteria. It matters not, how many generations they pass.

                    Thanks for trying, though.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That statement is full admittance to not understanding evolution. Yet, you persist. Curious behavior.

              2. aka-dj profile image78
                aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You have an uncanny ability to miss the point.

                Congratulations on doing so, yet again.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The fact that I understood the argument being presented in the video is the same tired argument long refuted shows that I got the point and perhaps you missed it.

                  The problem with the argument is that the author asserts one can create the very same thing in a short period of time in which evolution took massive spans of time to accomplish. The argument thusly backfires in the face of those who don't understand this concept.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes exactly, you don't understand evolution, yet you continue to dismiss it. That is dishonesty.



          That is a lie and you know it.



          I don't believe in evolution, I understand it. It doesn't keep nor deplete my happiness in the least, just like any other scientific fact.

    6. 0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Extinction is not necessarily a function of evolution. Extinction, as we have clearly witnessed in the modern era, is often the function of over-harvesting, destruction of habitat.

      Science demonstrates as well that the extinction of the dinosaurs, for example, was not the work of evolution, but of some catastrophic event or series of events.

  2. Onusonus profile image87
    Onusonusposted 3 years ago

    I have several issues with evolution theory, but the one that I will mention is the fact that scientists assert that everything goes through a slow process of development over millions and billions of years that got us to where we are today. More particularly the human brain, over billions of years, has slowly developed in our ability to form thoughts and communicate. On the contrary human civilization has been evidenced to form around seven thousand years or so ago, and has spiraled exponentially in growth ever since.
    So slowly but surely we developed from a organism, to a type of fish, to a type of primate over billions of years, then all of a sudden over a mere seven thousand years we go from practically no organized thought, to being farmers, to writers, to manipulating metals, to being city builders, to building ships, and weapons, to developing technology, to building vehicles, to blasting off into space, to inventing microchips, to communicating with anyone and everyone across the entire globe so we can send funny pictures of cats to people in Timbuktu.

    It seems to me that this so called billion year process is not only lacking in evidence, but that there is evidence which contradicts it all together.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Are you confusing physical (genetic) changes that produce the ability to reason with reasoning and gathering of knowledge?

      One requires millions of years while the other, once the first is accomplished, requires thousands.  It's like being amazed that we traveled at 20 mph or less for 50,000 years but then went supersonic in 100 once flight was discovered.

      1. Onusonus profile image87
        Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And yet there was absolutely zero change in the human brain capacity. No evolution whatsoever was involved.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Your kidding right? We are still evolving my friend. Every few years the IQ tests have to be rescaled so that the average is still 100.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image83
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            When they have to round up, it becomes devolution. :V

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sometimes it's hard to believe we are becoming smarter.

        2. 0
          riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Autobiography?

        3. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You are confusing the two, aren't you? 

          No, there have been no major changes in the past 50,000 or 100,000 years in genetic or physical structure.  There have been massive changes in the knowledge held in the brain and other medium (cave drawings, books, electronic memory, etc.) however.  Knowledge builds on itself, but has nothing to do with evolution past evolving the ability to gather knowledge.

          1. aka-dj profile image78
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's a well stated opinion!

            Shame we can't prove any of it. sad

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What made humans successful is our ability to share information. How many of us can build a computer from scratch materials? Can I prove that? yes.

              1. OgreKing profile image79
                OgreKingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                What made humans successful was a diversified, scavengers diet and a hardwired pack mentality ,accompanied by a dominant brain lobe. That gave us a dominant eye, and the unprecedented ability to kill nearly any other creature on earth.  With that seemingly accidental gift, we were able to compete with larger and more dangerous animals.
                Insects are actually better than us at sharing information.
                I can build a simple computer from scratch- it's called an abbacus.LOL

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What makes humans successful is our ability to share or sell information. Once we started do so we flourished. Not that hard to understand really.

      1. 0
        riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        For an intelligent person. You know average IQ is 100 means there are people whose IQ is below 100 and such people find it easier to believe their guardians and follow the herd and argue for it, than think.(I agree that the willingness to use intelligence matters more than having it)

        1. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
          Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Einstein had a pretty low IQ and yet he is considered one of the mostintelligent people who ever lived. Again Darwin was "below average" during his school years and he is again one of the most influential people ever to live.

          Peoples intelligence shines depending on whether or not they are studying a subject that intrests them personally and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution...we are after all still only using 10% of the brain we have at the moment.

          1. 0
            riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Do you believers routinely lie and make up stuff like this? Who checked Einstein's or Darwin's IQ?
            Better performance in school is not related to IQ alone. And who said IQ alone is the measurement of intelligence?


            If evolution is not a matter of interest for you people, why do you comment about evolution? And evolution is too simple that it does not even require a high intelligence to understand.

            If you are commenting about yourself you might be right, but if you are commenting about the human kind, then this is another lie. Isn't there something about not lying in your scriptures?

            1. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
              Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well i'm afraid to tell you its true, if you bothered to read anything about them you'd know (and im not talking about Wikipedia!) I certainly do not think IQ is a measure of intelligence and that's why I used Einstein and Darwin as examples...

              Evolution does interest me greatly. I am however amazed at how people try to attribute all life on earth to this as you say very simple concept...Every single theory in the history of the world has been greatly modified before it becomes an acceptable fact and evolution is NO different. it will become fact but only within a small sphere of authority, it certainly will never become fact as regards explaining all life on earth.

              Cmon...you cant just tell me i'm lying and end it there sad

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Fair enough! I'm willing to learn, what's your theory? And what evidence do you have to support it?

              2. 0
                riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                From where then did you get The IQ figure? And I didn't say anything about IQ, I only said anybody with an average intelligence can understand evolution.


                A theory is only a theory, not a fact. There are only two theories regarding the life on earth, creation and evolution. As creation is irrational(self contradictory) then only evolution remains. We know most things about evolution though we may not know about every intermediaries., but doesn't make that theory impossible.

    3. 0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What SPECIFIC evidence to the contrary---specific evidence which counters evolutionary theory, are you referring to?

      1. Onusonus profile image87
        Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Society.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How exactly does "society" a social and cultural construct demonstrate that biological and genetic evolutionary theories are invalid?

        2. Zelkiiro profile image83
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Which is a function of evolution that many animals, from apes and meerkats to ants and bacteria, exhibit obvious signs of.

          1. Onusonus profile image87
            Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            How many meerkats have designed a computer, or sent its self to the moon? Answer, none. Why can't anything else but humans do that? Why haven't any other creatures that have been around longer than humans developed that part of their brains? Don't you think this is inconsistent with the idea we are all related to the same 3.8 billion year old universal ancestor?

            1. Zelkiiro profile image83
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Where are our 40 other arms? Why can't we see perfectly at night? Why can't we make buildings out of our spit? Why can't we breathe water? Why can't we carry things 11 times our own weight or jump 50 times our height? Don't you think this is inconsistent with the idea we are all related to the same 3.8 billion year old universal ancestor?

              http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll145/Zelkiiro/Forum%20Junk/MisatoFacepalm.jpg

              1. Onusonus profile image87
                Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Yes I do.

                1. psycheskinner profile image80
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Why?

                  Because you seem to see the good stuff we have as supporting creationism, and also the good stuff we don't have as supporting creationism.

                  That makes me wonder what scenario, if any, you think would not support creationism.

                2. Zelkiiro profile image83
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  ...I'm assuming you're still in middle school, then? Because there is no way in hell you could've passed 7th Grade Biology.

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Basic biology and basic understanding of genetics explains the diversity.

                    The old Punnet Square of dominant/recessive traits is a good place to start with understanding evolution of offspring toward AND/OR away from the genetic parents.

                  2. Onusonus profile image87
                    Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Why is that? Because I don't believe that we are related to ants and spiders? lol

                3. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No...if we understand evolutionary (biological and genetic) then you would understand how evolution itself accounts for the diversity of species.

                  1. Onusonus profile image87
                    Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    In theory sure.

            2. 0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Basic evolutionary theory explains the diversity of life and intelligence on the planet Earth and makes clear that evolution does not mean we all evolve on the same path or at the same speed. Evolution is (among other things) a function of environment or of place and as environment or place developed diversely so did life develop diversely---including intelligent life.

              I must say that Creationism is not central to all Christian belief systems. Roman Catholicism and many mainstream Protestant and Jewish sects, for example, embrace evolution and the so-called Big Bang Theory of the origins of the universe.

              1. Onusonus profile image87
                Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So what purpose does having such a complex brain serve to humans? If we are nothing more than really  smart animals what does the ability to blow stuff up, use a soldering iron, create complex machinery and so forth, have to do with our survival?

                1. Zelkiiro profile image83
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  ...Really? You can't think of any possible ways that higher intelligence guarantees survival?

                  What about the ability to outsmart predators? Or trapping/killing them?
                  What about the ability to devise and to plan?
                  What about the ability to solve complex problems?
                  What about the ability to conserve and/or replicate resources?
                  Or how about those examples you yourself listed?!

                  Those are all survival traits. If you're dumber than your predator, you'll likely die. If you have no planning skills, you'll likely die. If you can't solve a life-threatening problem, you'll likely die. If you don't have ready access to vital resources, you'll likely die. Are you starting to get the picture yet?!

                  1. Onusonus profile image87
                    Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So why shouldn't anything else be able to use their brains the way that we do in order to survive? And if they don't need it why do we?

                  2. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The human being is physiologically inferior. It was the evolution of the human brain---particularly its strategic thinking, its critical thinking, its ability to process information in ways that allow us to think beyond the present moment and to react in ways not necessarily hinged on instinct that allowed humans to dominate the environments in which they lived.

                    As noted, our very survival was a function of our brains not our bodies.

                    There is no point arguing against the fact that superior intelligence and/or cognitive skills contributed to human survival.

          2. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Is religion---since religion (not faith) is socially and culturally constructed also a sign of that evolution?

            Is Creationism itself a function of, and evidence of,  the evolution of diverse species of plants and animals and other living organisms?

            Or, is religion itself a marker of the presumed invalidity of theories of biological and genetic evolution; presumed invalidity that is, essentially, a function of failed understanding of the theories themselves?

            1. Zelkiiro profile image83
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Religion is a more complex form of superstition, and humans are hardly the only superstitious animals. And as irritating as it is, superstition is a fairly potent survival mechanic.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That is true. Religion, like evolution of a species itself, is a survival mechanism.

                Did you know that evolutionary biological has shown that some people are actually hard-wired to believe in god and to engage with religion while others are not?

                There is actually a genetic predisposition for faith and religiosity---and we do NOT all have it.

                Very interesting.

                1. OgreKing profile image79
                  OgreKingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  HAha. The Sumerians said that we were literally made to worship the gods, that we were predisposed to being subservient to them. It helped keep us under control. Supposedly it worked wonderfully, until we received a "communication" that the Annunaki weren't really gods...
                  seems once the antennae was erected, so to speak, we began to get other messages.

            2. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think there are clearly evolutionary advantages to many religious beliefs.  And unlike a God, evolution is a creator that has no ego and so does not need to be believed in, let alone worshiped.

  3. Disappearinghead profile image90
    Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago

    Why do so many Christians get their knickers in a twist about evolution? Why is it so offensive a concept to them? What do they hope to gain by rigidly holding on to a literal interpretation of Genesis? Why do they insist on a level of scientific proof for evolution but singularly fail to offer anything, anything at all, in support of creationism? Why do they feel that their views are exempt from independent scrutiny?

    I'm more than happy to accept a God directed evolution but after all I am a heretic.

    1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      My friend was head of biology at a well known university is a theological evolutionist  He is highly respected around the world, and a believer. My gripe with evolution;  though a theory it is taught as fact. Which really self limits the human who never knows there are other ways to believe.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And religion teaches God is a fact without any evidence. There are mounds of evidence for evolution and yet you think we should teach it as a maybe?

        1. OgreKing profile image79
          OgreKingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, consciousness can be mathematically defined. Aether physics has a mathematical model that in essence proves the (theoretical) existence of a universal mind.
          I.E., GOD.
          All very interesting. Like I said, the truth is probably stranger than any of us can imagine.

      2. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Heliocentrism is a theory, too. Should we stop teaching our kids that the Earth revolves around the sun, then?

        Because, you know, it's ONLY a theory and all. It's not like a scientific theory is the step just below a scientific law or anything.

    2. Onusonus profile image87
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's always amusing to me that when one dares to question the scientific religion of evolution, the atheists, agnostics, and what have you, get their knickers twisted.
      It's almost as if we have to believe in evolution with unwavering faith or we are complete deniers of reality.
      I for one, do not hold it against others for not believing in Jesus even though the Bible is a true source of intelligence from the very being who created everything.
      The fact that you might not believe it means that you question the standard religious explanation of how the world works. So why can't we do the same with scientists?

      1. Disappearinghead profile image90
        Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Science is objective and only concerned with seeking the objective truth based upon evidence and observation. Religion does not seek proof and is fractured into innumerable camps based upon opinion.

        The Genesis creation myth is that a myth because there is no evidence to substantiate it. We have no idea who wrote it or when. We have no idea whether or not God dictated it to them verbatim, or whether the authors simply wrote up the locally common held beliefs. We can look at other parallel myths and see similarities, so which came first, which influenced the other? It's all just too vague, and we only have a single statement "All scripture is God breathed......." to pin any credibility on it. But even that statement is just another author expressing an opinion; we weren't there to observe the writing being created and we cannot get inside the heads of the authors.

        So to think Genesis represents a literal reportage account is to commit intellectual suicide. As science disproves a literal account, we can only conclude that Genesis provides analogy, principles and a representation of the thoughts of the authors.

        1. Onusonus profile image87
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So your conclusion is that a scientific guess is superior to a religious assertion, regardless of the fact that there is hardly any evidence to support it.
          So how is it explained scientifically that all the animals in the world that started out as organisms which came out of their own various "primordial oozes" with such diversity and yet humans are the only animals that are capable of producing an intelligent thought?
          One would think that if everything evolves constantly, their would be a multitude of animals that we would have been competing in the space race with.
          I have heard that dolphins are one of the smartest creatures on the Earth but to date nobody has ever seen one build an internal combustion engine.

          1. Melissa A Smith profile image94
            Melissa A Smithposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Because evolving the capability of humans requires many prerequisites such as complex vocal range, binocular vision, and certain cognitive traits. Hands are also somewhat important in being able to construct anything, period. Evolution has nothing to do with achieving the 'smartest mind'. Everything in evolution is an 'accident' that works. Human intelligence is an offset of all the right adaptations occurring at the right time, because it somehow made us successful in producing more offspring.

            1. Onusonus profile image87
              Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Interestingly, and some might even say miraculously, Humans posses no ability to actually survive in the wild. We can't live without shelter, we can't hunt without weapons, and human babies are uniquely defenseless in that they could not possibly fend for themselves for at least the first decade of their existence and yet they have survived regardless of the fact that we are far from being the "fittest". Whereas most other animals in the world, with few exceptions, hit the ground running as soon as they step outside of the womb.
              It's kind of silly -if you think about it- to say that people share a common ancestor with apes when we share so little in common. in fact if I were a betting man I would say that we are closer to mercats, or squirrels. lol

              1. Melissa A Smith profile image94
                Melissa A Smithposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That isn't true at all. There are other humans in this world besides those in the technological modern part, way more robust than we are. We can't survive the same way domesticated animals and hand-raised wild animals can't, we haven't learned how to, but we can always learn. Humans have evolved to use weapons and other tools. That is our species trait.
                You're also not too educated on animals, I don't know of any mammal that can survive on its own soon after birth. Our closest relatives also have longer developmental periods of many years. Many reptiles fit the definition of what you're speaking. Humans are very 'fit'. Fitness has nothing to do with strength. Humans are actually apes.

                1. Onusonus profile image87
                  Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  By "fit" I was referring to the adage coined by Herbert Spencer that is commonly attached to evolution theory. And you can't prove that Humans are related to Apes. We actually came out of the ground. You should already know that but you don't seem to be very educated in the history of creation.

                  1. Melissa A Smith profile image94
                    Melissa A Smithposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes...that's exactly what I meant. Humans are very fit, and fitness has nothing to do with strength.
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
                    No, humans actually are apes, look it up.

          2. Disappearinghead profile image90
            Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes science is superior to religious assertion. The former is based on study, observation, objectivity; the latter is based upon subjective opinion.

            1. Onusonus profile image87
              Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So the Lucy exhibit is an objective assertion of science? In that case I think I found a new species too.
              http://www.atbreak.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/photoshop_animals_05.jpg

              1. Zelkiiro profile image83
                Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sounds like you may be in the running for a Golden Crocoduck award, because your ignorance is astonishing.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Do you have a superior peer reviewed explanation for our existence which takes the genetic, fossil records into account?

                1. Onusonus profile image87
                  Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well all I have to do is the same thing the people who created Lucy did. I'll find a dead Duck, and a dead alligator, and combine them. Bam! I'm a scientist!

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Go ahead, see how far that gets you. Those scientists have no reason to lie, but you do.

            2. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Depends on what "superior" means, and that depends on the context. Is science superior to religious assertion in the context of obtaining objectively verifiable information? Absolutely. Is science superior to religious assertion in the context of creating a narrative that people find solace in, and base the meaning of their life on? Not necessarily.

        2. OgreKing profile image79
          OgreKingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          This is absolutely untrue. Scientific dogma can be clung to as closely as any religious idea. In fact, it continues to this day.  It takes tremendous bravery to release information into the scientific world that goes against the standard theories, because scientists that are stupid enough to attack bastions of scientific theory are blacklisted.
          Does anyone know about this http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/
          for instance?

    3. Melissa A Smith profile image94
      Melissa A Smithposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There's absolutely no reason for anyone to discuss evolution with you if you won't hold Creationism to the same scrutiny, period.

  4. aka-dj profile image78
    aka-djposted 3 years ago

    It's been an interesting discussion between just a few folk so far.

    I notice that no-one has actually addressed the OP regarding evolutions destructive course.

    If evolution is an "upward" trend, it is creating a catastrophic downward path.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image83
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So you're puzzled as to why there are fewer species now because you think evolution is supposed to do nothing but create limitless kinds of life forms?

      You really don't understand evolution at all, then--it's all about life adapting to its environment. If the piranha is perfectly suited to his river habitat, what need would his genes have to mutate? If the gorilla is perfectly suited to his patch of jungle, then why would his genes ever dictate that changes need to be made?

      Life exploded during the Cambrian era largely because the Earth's environments were ever-shifting and new adaptations needed to be made, not because evolution has to reach some arbitrary Species Count Quota.

      1. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So, in your example, it's ok if the gorilla dies out.

        Humans, like piranhas, are reducing gorilla habitat at an alarming rate (s we are for most large mammal species), and we will make them extinct.

        I understand evolution just fine.

        So, we should evolution take it's natural course, and watch these species die out.

        As a product of evolution, why should anyone care?

        1. Zelkiiro profile image83
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Aside from the animals we consume to survive, we really shouldn't. But it doesn't matter, really. We'll die out eventually, as well, and something else will take our place.

        2. 0
          riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You will only receive what you give. If you go about robbing and murdering because you are a product of evolution, you will be behind bars. But will you start doing all these things if there is no god? I do not rob or kill not because I am afraid of any god nor because I want any eternal life, it is just maturity.

          1. aka-dj profile image78
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Robbing and murdering is wrong.
            Evolution teaches no morals. Who teaches you right and wrong?

            1. 0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Then why is it not wrong that the Israelite robbed the Palestinian of their land, or killed even pregnant women(as described in OT)?
              Then why religious people do all these things?
              Who teach lions to care for their sick?
              If one is a social animal, one cannot survive without co-operation and only that animal groups with co-operation survive.
              So evolution preserve that animals with better co-operation, and the rules of interaction between same members of a group you call morals. It may be different from that of us, but all animals that live in groups have "morals". Say foxes are life long faithful partners.

              So if you were not taught to kill, would you kill?
              Try it, even without any god it is difficult to kill even an animal.
              PS: Even your supposed jesus understood this. Haven't you read in bible that "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but has an end"? There are some morals and law among satan too!!!!

              1. aka-dj profile image78
                aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                There are men who kill without remorse, or without a moral compass.

                They, like you and me, evolved that way.

                Who are you, or who am I to say they are wrong.

                My question to you was "who teaches you right and wrong?"

                Weapons of mass destruction are therefore neither good nor evil. They are simply tools of evolved man to control his own destiny.

                That statement ought to put a chill down your spine.
                Why? Because you know, inherently that somethings are right and some things are wrong.

                Another example.
                Is it ok for a man to beat his wife?

                1. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, they were born that way. They are the psychopaths. At the opposite extreme is the extreme altruists, but majority falls in between some to the more extremes. If one of the character is better for survival, more offsprings of that character survive and gradually that trait becomes the major character of the species - that is evolution

                  Why do you want to judge? It is not the individual but the society to which the individual is born that decides the morals. In America, the morality of that society is that the women can expose most of her body parts and can work(while a few centuries before that was not the case) while in some other societies that is immoral, and the moral changes as more and more knowledge is accumulated. Even christians morals changed over centuries. Very few things are inherently wrong, most are educated. The inherently right and wrong are the things that help in better survival and reproduction, nothing else

                  1. aka-dj profile image78
                    aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Killing women for "adultery" in an islamic country, is good, then.

                    Female genital mutilation in Africa is good, then.

                    Human sacrifice in native tribes in New Guinea, is good then.

                    I got it!

  5. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
    Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago

    the Darwinian theory of evolution is practically dead. We now know that there is a limited amount of micro evolutionary changes that can take place within a species before it can't go any further, to try and get around this problem some scientists have come up with the idea of transmutation which is basically a massive jump so that you can get from fish to amphibian, etc (exactly the same as saying god did it because there is absolutely no empirical evidence for this idea as it does not require the transitional fossils they have tried so hard to find.)

    The idea that life follows a sequential pattern has also been widely criticized for again, no empirical evidence just hypotheticals. it's ironic to think that Darwinist evolutionists have been hammering anyone who believes in god as being pig ignorant and unscientific when the theory of evolution which was accepted in 1859 was based on the assumption that people would find the evidence later...Darwin freely admits this himself. Evolution was built on the social consensus of people of that time, not on evidence.

    100+ years on and still scarcely any observable evidence has been put forward for evolution (Macro evolution that is.)
    Take the mammal for example, it has some very unique characteristics which have absolutely no transitional possibilities and is separate altogether from anything else. The cerebral cortex, pituatory gland and the hair of mammals are perfect examples of those unique characteristics. Every mammal has them, from us to mice we all have the same basic structure. Is it really possible that random chance mutations endowed us with these? because that is exactly what evolution is suggesting.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hair? All mammals have hair? Dolphins? Some have a small amount before birth, but after that, nothing. Mammals in the water, wonder how that happened?

      1. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
        Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        rad man the point that you are scathing over is that hair is unique to mammals and there is no transition between having it and not having it. it is simply there, in many different forms however the basic genetic code for it is the same.

        I don't see having mammals in the water as a problem in any way....why not?

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Transitional possibilities might include the marsupials - something rather in between.  Or perhaps a Platypus.  Or the echidnas; egg laying, warm blooded and lactating animals.

      "Is it really possible that random chance mutations endowed us with these?"

      Yes.  Do try and remember that the mutations themselves are random, but whether it is kept around or not is NOT random at all.

      1. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
        Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        the example of the platypus is not valid because the eggs that it lays are precisely as you would expect to find in a reptilian species and also the it mammalian features are exactly as you would find in other mammals so while it is an incredible mystery to both evolution and the typological view of life, it is still not an example of transition. not 100% sure on the other examples you have put forward but I would assume that it's much the same story (but I will look into that, except marsupials:)

        wilderness where are the billions upon billions...upon billions of transitional fossils then?

        Remember the example of the fruit fly, scientists managed to fit millions of years of evolution (Random chance mutations) into a few decades, what was the result? While the fruit flies did mutate the mutations where all bad. some having wings coming out of their heads while others being given extra legs. not only that but after a few generations of breeding the fruit fly reverted back to its original self. This proves that even millions of years is not enough for evolution to take place, in fact it would need infinite time...apparently there is only 8 million years difference between us and chimps, but if you cant change  a fruit fly even slightly in the equivalent of a few million years could that figure really be accurate?



        can you really explain the complexity of life with such a simplistic idea of Darwinian evolution? (I do stress the Darwinian version)

        Please also tell me any theory that has existed in the past that has not been radically changed over the years in order for it to eventually become a fact but only in a small sphere of authority.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Why isn't the platypus a potential transition?  It has the characteristics of both reptiles and mammals; the very definition of a transition.  And yes, the echidnas are the same; animals that have characteristics of both reptiles and mammals.

          Why do you ask for "transitional" fossils?  Every fossil is transitional, from one species to another.  Even species that haven't changed in a million years will one day either change or go extinct.

          The fruit fly - it proves nothing of the sort.  It proves than the random mutations were not viable; this is something that is completely normal.  You can claim it would take infinite time, but I would surely like to see those calculations (including the premises they are based on).

          Complexity - yes you can.

          Theories change, and often only in a small sphere of authority.  Creationism is an excellent example; the small "authority" sphere has been forced to change the theory to one of billions of years rather than 7 days and to include evolution rather than a handful of dust.  True, the "authorities" have made no observations, no tests and no peer reviews, but they remain "authoritative" in the eyes of millions that do not seek knowledge themselves.

          1. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
            Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            for it to be a transitional example you would need subordinate mammalian feature or a more pre historic type of egg, don't forget there is again absolutely no proof of the platypus descending from another lineage because there is no evidence of it.

            "every fossil is transitional" oh dear but what you see in these so called transitional fossils is little to no change BUT if we are to believe that all life on earth came from the same source then what we should be able to see is ACTUAL transitional fossils which can show us from the original point when life emerged the simplest of animals right up to the more "Complex"...this all scientists will tell you we do not have s why should you say otherwise? not only that we should have billions of examples of the mutated animals that went wrong...we don't, seriously we should be swimming in these fossils!

            Surely the fact that within millions of years a fruit fly couldn't change even slightly shows how far off the current theory of evolution is off at being able to explain life on earth, this is common sense. For evolution to work you would have to go back to the Lamarckian view of it which I would be evolution from a directed source this is becoming more and more obvious.

            "Complexity - yes you can." ....well that's me convinced then.

            lets not talk about creationism, its stupid. However the point I was getting at is that it is a historical fact that evolution will be greatly modified over time and will end up only having a small sphere of authority because it hasn't got enough weight behind its ideas.

            why are you so disgusted by the idea that evolution needs to change in order to fit in with new facts as they come in? Evolution is a perfect example of the intelligence of the masses and I suppose its just too early to push you for that much needed change.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't claim the platypus was transitional to mammalian - I said it is a possible candidate for such a creature.  Which is what you asked for; some animal that could be in the process of changing to a mammal.

              Doesn't seem that you understand what the word "transitional" means.  You're complaining that there is little to no change between fossils; exactly the definition of transitional.  Very small changes often impossible to detect from fossil remains.  The problem is that you seem to think that organisms leaving behind .00000001% of their remains as fossilized remains, and humans finding .0000001% of those few available remains will produce a sample of every possible change that evolution produces.  It won't.

              Fruit flies going through millions of years of artificial evolution - unlikely in the extreme.  Impossible, I should say; that would mean Billions of generations, many with differing environments and all subject to mutation.  It means thousands or millions of differing isolated groups, with subsequent thousands of generations.  It didn't happen in a lab.  Somebody is exaggerating wildly.

              Evolution: the capacity of a species to evolve into another species.  That hasn't and can't change without the entire theory becoming false.  The specifics of individual species, the concepts of what causes mutations, the possibilities of extreme environmental changes over large areas (dinosaur killer asteroid, maybe); all those ideas change and grow, but the basic premise that species evolve and change does not.

              1. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
                Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                well I'm not going to argue with you any longer so lets just concentrate on your last comment because it shows exactly why you are unwilling to see the flaws in evolution, if it cannot sand up to scrutiny then as you put it the entire theory will become false. I don't fully agree with this but it does really point out why evolutionists are so dogmatic.

                1. psycheskinner profile image80
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Is it dogmatic to say the sky is blue because we are looking at it and it is blue?  Species changing into other species across generations has been observed, it does happen.  It has been made to happen experimentally, and observed to happen naturally without even resorting to the fossil record.

                  1. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
                    Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    funnily enough yes it is because the sky only seems to be blue when in fact it is no particular colour at all.

                    phsyceskinner I have no problem with species being able to change to a degree however like anyone who has bothered to study it I have a serious problem with the bridges beyond species ever even conceivably being breached by something as childish as Darwinian evolution.

                    Mammals by all empirical and logical evidence have not in any way to be shown as coming from anything other than mammals. Also even species within the mammalian family have clear boundaries that cannot be stepped over...that is not contestable by evolution, only hypothetically can it challenge that basic premise.
                    Same goes for birds, reptiles and fish.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  OK - last statement that evolution is about species changing to another species. 

                  It is self evident that species can and do change, and only a fool would argue that that cannot happen.  The leaves only the idea that changes can accumulate to the point that a new species can occur. 

                  Personally I don't see the problem of accumulating changes.  I HAVE seen people attempting to prove mathematically it can't happen - that it requires infinite time to produce a finite number of changes - but the math is always seriously flawed.

                  1. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
                    Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    ok mate 10 years time we will see more evidence smile

    3. Zelkiiro profile image83
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Proof positive that you don't understand evolution: You still think it's random.

      The success of one trait over another and the deliberate passing-on of that trait? There's nothing less random.

      1. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
        Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        zelkiro you don't understand the Darwinian version of evolution then. it is random and it will not allow for any sort of order.

        Deliberate passing on sounds like intelligence so that phrase cannot be used, seriously the definition of evolution keeps changing from person to person...

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          False.  While mutations are indeed random (or intentionally caused by man) the long term results of those mutations are most definitely NOT random at all. 

          Lots of people fail to understand this, that evolution is not random at all.  It is a combination of statistical near certainty, combined with a very wide range of probabilities dealing with environment.

          1. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
            Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            statistical near certainty using the laws of the universe and mathematics hmm? again if you are going to use that as a defence then you need to explain where those perfect laws originated from...to get to the bottom of things I guess really it goes beyond evolution and ultimately the originof our clockwork universe, which is even harder for you to defend smile

            lets just both be humble and conclude that neither of us really have a clue because even the most eminent scientists will admit that they don't because new evidence is coming in ALL of the time and we simply cant keep up with it all.

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Your comment has nothing to do with what you quoted.

              Natural selection is clearly not random.  The clue is in the name.

              1. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
                Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I wasn't talking to you and the way the conversation was going with wilderness it made sense.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Best guess is that laws of the universe came out of the big bang.  How?  Nobody has a clue, except of course those that blithely claim that "Godunnit" without having a clue of how or even if there IS a god.

              But that's not a reason to not try and figure it out.

              1. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
                Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                well to me god is antecedent of the big bang, something that logically precedes it.

                If the universe is purely physical then wouldn't something non physical have to make it? why not god? spiritual creates physical.....

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There is no logic at all in that statement. Just wishful thinking. You have no evidence for anything spiritual and yet claim the physical came from something imagined.

                  If the universe is purely physical then wouldn't something physical have to have made it? Why can't it just start?

                  Why not God? Why not the Easter bunny? Why not God is the worst argument imaginable. I maintain that the universe is but a speck of dirt on a giant Easter bunny. Why not?

                  1. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
                    Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I do believe I was talking to someone else and if you was following the conversation we came to the conclusion that neither of us really know just like the rest of the human race.

                    ok so you are happy that the physical always existed and nothing came before it, very shallow minded but if you are genuinely happy with that then keep it im not looking to take it away from you.

                    also your right I have no evidence for anything spiritual, but the idea of spirit came first so its up to the atheists to disprove it by purely physical means and you guys have done a pretty shoddy job so far. i'm not going into it with you because I know your mind is clearly already made up...which by the speed in which the scientific community is moving at these days will make you a metaphorical caveman wink

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It may be antecedal to you, but you have nothing at all to base that conclusion on and that becomes a major problem.  You're complaining that every detail, every micro change in evolution is not known but then turn around and declare there is a god, another universe for it to live in and that it made this one without the tiniest bit of evidence.  Can you see the problem with that?

                  You then ask if our physical universe requires a non-physical one - to the best of our knowledge the answer is no.  There is nothing in our knowledge base that requires another universe.

                  1. Dannytaylor02 profile image84
                    Dannytaylor02posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    ok one thing there I don't ask for every detail to be filled...I happen to agree with micro evolution as I have clearly pointed out...its macro evolution I have a problem with and i'm not alone.

              2. OgreKing profile image79
                OgreKingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No Big Bang. It's in it's death throes.
                http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/05/30/10646/
                There are other sites that you can find that might help explain it.
                Don't take my word for it. Google Alton Harp and Redshift.
                The problem with red shift was just the tip of the iceberg, it opened a huge can of worms with more questions than answers.
                Still, the physical evidence is unquestionable, and Even the scientific dogmatists will eventually have to come up with a new theory.
                Actually, there is one-
                THE UNIVERSE IS AND ALWAYS HAS JUST BEEN.
                No beginning, no end, just is.
                This is such a fantastic thought that for some reason everyone, even atheists, become terrified at the thought.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image83
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Why did it start expanding 14 billion years ago, then?

                  1. OgreKing profile image79
                    OgreKingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Please read the information in the provided link. It's obvious from your question that you didn't check the link. The point is that there have always been alternative theories, but people seem to know only the commonly accepted, easy B.S. The link provided is a jumping off point to one of those opposing theories.
                    It's put forward by Scientists. It's repeatable and provable in a laboratory.(Unlike black matter and such nonsense, all mathematical rabbit holes). It does not follow scientific nor religious convention. And it's predictions have been accurate.
                    Approach it with an open mind, not a closed mind.
                    In order to try to understand what I point to, you'll have to understand what red shift is, and what Alton Harp discovered. There are scientifically observable problems with the expansion theory. This is a scientific counterpoint, explanation and solution.
                    Read it before you respond, because your post above seems kind of like you saying "I know you are but what am I?". An empty argument and strawman.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, but although Arp did some fine work a long time ago, he turned crackpot, his arguments have been refuted by observations, not to mention the blatant falsehoods he embarrassingly continues to embrace.

  6. Zara thompson profile image59
    Zara thompsonposted 3 years ago

    Evolution is happening all time, right in front of us. Every species has been undergoing subtle changes that we might not differentiate right away, but are evident 100s of years into the future.
    As many have stated examples. Like Horse, Donkey, Zebra. Dogs. Dogs actually are descendants of wolves. And in dogs alone there are about 200 breeds that we have bred over the past 3000 years or so. Even humans are no different. We ourselves have evolved from tree dwelling species to an intelligent species. We have evolved from pygmy sized people in Africa to over 6 feet tall humans in Europe. DNA evidence points that all of the world
    population comes from Africa.
    Evolution is happening all the time and its happening right under our nose. We cannot stop evolution. It is very similar to that philosophical note that says that if there is anything that is constant in the world i e is change. Change is happening all the time. If you don't accept change and adapt to the changes, you'll be no where.

  7. 0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    Selective breeding is not analogous to mutation.

    Mutation occurs without breeding.

    In fact, bacteria and viruses do become more complex and their DNA is altered.

    1. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Selective breeding is analogous to natural selection.  In fact it partially inspired Darwin's original formulation fo the theory of evolution.

      because if human environments cause genetic change, far larger and harsher natural environments must do the same.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh course they do. Look at the people of the far north in North America and Russia. They have been forced to adapt to withstand frostbite.

        1. OgreKing profile image79
          OgreKingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's interesting. Can you point to a scientific paper on this?

  8. aka-dj profile image78
    aka-djposted 3 years ago

    http://files.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_1219/12192355/file/weight-loss-clinic-whale-small-23581.jpg
    I love evolution, now.
    In fact I love whales.

    Look what they could become in a few million years!

  9. 0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    Halton Harp's work was initially debunked/disproven with data collected by the Hubble Telescope. Current observations and data analysis continue to debunk/disprove Harp. Current counterpoints to Hawking and other proponents of the Big Bang come from Leonard Susskind, among others, and are very interesting.

    1. OgreKing profile image79
      OgreKingposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yet interestingly, proponents can still use the same data and interpret it Arp's way. The thing is, the data itself is not the problem, it's how the two schools of thought interpret it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Harp's math, nor his techniques, and only vocal proponents of the BBT have called him a crackpot. Like I said, scientific dogmatism.
      Here's some more info http://electric-cosmos.org/AppendixB.pdf
      Tell me there's something wrong with the idea that certain objects have intrinsic red shift. Seems completely plausible to me. No two stellar objects should have to be exactly alike in any way.
      More correctly put, Arp's conclusions haven't been debunked, they've been discredited by people with a vested interest in discrediting them. Any way, this is my last post on this subject. I wasn't defending any particular theory, ironically, I was pointing to a situation in which a good scientist (One of Hubble's team) was discredited for having the audacity to produce evidence that went against a scientific holy grail, The BBT.

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The concept of "redshift" is not about something "intrinsic" to anything. Objects do not have a property called redshift. Redshift is a function of space and time; of movement of an object away from a fixed object.

        Redshift most simply understood as the Doppler Effect.

        Some basic science: A "redshift"---is the perception of movement and occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. Cosmological redshift is a function of the  expansion of the universe, and distant light sources show redshift  as a function of their rate of increase in their distance from Earth.

        The bottom-line: Redshift proves the validity of the Big Bang and the inflationary universe and NOT the notion of a static universe.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nonsense, Arp's assertions have been refuted because there is much better observational equipment than there was when he made the initial claim. Since then he hasn't budged on his position no matter how much evidence is produced, and that is why he is called a crackpot.



        Yes, by the very process and results defined as "red shift", hence an object would have to exhibit the same properties and characteristics that meet the definition.

        Red shift is when light moves to the red end of the visible spectrum when the source of light is moving away from the observer. Gravitational redshift is when light moves through a gravity "well" produced by all objects.

        How can an object exhibit those properties and characteristics "intrinsically" and be differentiated from other objects that don't?



        That's the conspiracy theory. It is a silly one to say the least.



        The BBT is not a 'scientific holy grail', that is just nonsense. It is simply the only theory thus far that agrees with all the evidence. It's based on General Relativity, which has shown to be a fairly accurate description of the universe, thus far. As better equipment is built, scientists will find the answers to the unknown elements that will either support or falsify the BBT.

        No scientist worth his salt has a problem with that.

        Arp's assertions definitely appeared plausible at the time, until better equipment was built and it was found that he was dead wrong. The fact he refuses to accept that is his problem and no one else.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I think Isaac Asimov got it right when he quipped:

          "Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There is truth in that.  Few creationists recognize the vast difference between a hypothesis and a theory, ignore the rigorous testing and checking, the peer reviews and repeatability that are necessary to go from one to the other.

            1. aka-dj profile image78
              aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Like life in a test tube from inner material.
              Repeatable, testable, peer review-able, and proven to be true.
              Life from non-life, documented, accepted and promoted.

              I get it. lol

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not sure how engineering that can produce life from non-living materials is a "theory", but basically yes.

                I have read reports where just such an action was accomplished.  I have NOT read reports of anyone else duplicating the experiment as there is nothing new there.  Just engineering to figure out how to make the chemicals combine properly - no theory to be disproved. 

                Should the work prove to be economically viable, no doubt others will figure it out as well, using different techniques to accomplish the same thing, but it still won't be an earth shattering theory.  Just using engineering to accomplish something we see nature do all around us every day.  Like learning to fly or learning to put fake "shark skin" on a submarine to make it go faster or with less noise.

                1. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, we see inanimate objects coming to life every day, all around us.

                  I will keep my eyes open a little wider as of tomorrow. It seems I've missed it so far.

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Mocking what one is uninformed about is counterproductive.

                    In fact, genetic material is NOT a "living thing", but it constitutes living things---including humans. No one is suggesting that inanimate objects come to life. Inanimate objects are not made of the stuff of living things; not made of genetic material that are the building blocks of life.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Are you still here promoting ignorance and dishonesty? When you will you ever take the time to understand evolution? Never?

                  3. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    A little exaggeration (or a lot) goes a long way to support the unsupportable, doesn't it?  At least if one has an opinion that conflicts with reality...

  10. Jbern117 profile image78
    Jbern117posted 3 years ago

    I'm confused... you have pointed out that evolution may be imperfect, and therefore your conclusion is that creationism is the way to go? Now, if I ever saw flawed logic...

    Also, we have observed notable changes in animals that can change. If you know anything about biology, a sort of "evolution" is actually facilitated by predators encroaching on territory and killing off a large population - where normally any noticable changes in a species would take in the least hundreds of thousands of years to develop. This fast-paced evolution can be already seen in elephants. Poachers go for the elephants with the largest tusks, and so elephants are now evolving to have smaller tusks.

    Also, VERY IMPORTANT: I would like to explain the difference between Scientific Law and Theory.

    A scientific THEORY is a general statement to describe something observed in nature that is CONFIRMED by all available evidence. Theories such as evolution are very well grounded in fact, regardless of if you have the education to fully understand it. Any biologist worth his salt could explain in great detail why evolution is unarguably a FACT of nature. i.e. another scientific theory would be the theory of the heliocentric solar system: you don't argue about that theory, do you?

    A scientific LAW is more grounded in mathematics usually, and are very specific: i.e. Newton's law's, and the laws of thermodynamics

    So the basic idea is, the word theory in science is not of the same meaning as what most people would initially think. It's a common misconception that a scientific theory is not "proven", but in reality, a scientific theory is just a more generalized statement about science.

    End rant.

  11. Tom London profile image84
    Tom Londonposted 3 years ago

    Just really wanted to agree with the second post in this thread: "Not quite sure how an example of species that cannot effectively compete in a changing ecological niche is a flaw in evolution.  Rather, it would seem to be more evidence of the viability of that theory."

    Exactly!

  12. aka-dj profile image78
    aka-djposted 3 years ago

    None of you have written one shred of anything useful.

    You are just as good and active mockers as what you accuse me of.

    That's one thing I DO understand very clearly.

    Show me a picture of life created by men, in a test tube.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you need to see pictures of men in test tubes? I don't think they will fit.

    2. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But, it's clear you don't understand evolution, yet you dismiss out of hand simply because it somehow jeopardizes your religious beliefs.

      If you want something useful, read this...

      http://www.literature.org/authors/darwi … f-species/

  13. 0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    So, back to the origins of this conversation:

    How is evolution flawed simply because humans cannot create organic life in test tubes?

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Because humans don't have the divine ability to create life. They can only make babies. That's not creating life.

      There will never be any conditions in which a human can create life in the labratory.

      Humans don't have the ability to put the life spark into organic material.

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        But, how is evolutionary theory flawed or wrong because human beings cannot (to date) create life?

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, I see I misunderstood your question.

          It's a cause and effect thing you're getting at, right?

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe.

            I guess what I do not understand is why the evolution of life must be "flawed" or wrong because you believe that a divinity initiated life.

            The Catholic Church, for example, embraces Intelligent Design and maintains that while life was created by god, it was created to evolve as it has evolved. In other words: God is the grand architect of the universe and made a universe that would emerge from a Big Bang and then evolve---as evolutionary biology has discovered that it does, in fact, evolve. In other words, for Catholics Intelligent Design and evolution are not mutually-exclusive. Evolution is part of the plan of intelligent design.

            This position, interestingly, is held by many scientists who refer, for example, to understanding the instant before the Big Bang as something better left to St Augustine and to other theologians.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Why would anyone wishing to understand the "instant" before the big bang to a theologian?  A theologian that will make up an answer - any answer - that matches their predetermined prejudice of a diety and automatically discard all others?  That will not check further as long as it agrees?  That will not compare it to existing knowledge of physics and cosmology? 

              Indeed, it strikes me that any scientist that fails to understand that current knowledge is not all encompassing and that all of it (including "knowledge" of a diety) is subject to change with the advent of new knowledge isn't worthy of the label "scientist".  So why would a real scientist entrust understanding that instant to someone who does NOT understand that?

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Because scientists are able to admit when they cannot explain something with science.

                That is NOT to say that scientists are not trying to work to understand the moment before the Big Bang. It is simply to say that they understand and admit that at least for now, the moment before the Big Bang---of which we really know nothing, is a moment better left to theology and not science.|

                And remember, many "real"scientists are also believers in God and in something beyond what their science can know.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Better left to theology? That's funny. This is precisely what stops people thinking. We don't have an answer "God done it". No more thinking required. There are many physicist working on what's before the big bang none of them are saying "God done it".

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Read St Augustine. The problem is not theology. Theology is a lively and intellectually challenging field of study.

                    As a historian I know one thing with near-absolute certainty: We cannot prove the counter-factual. We cannot prove, that is, that God does exist nor can we prove that a God does not exist.

                    Believing in or not believing in God is not a matter of science or history. It is a matter of faith---and faith is believing what we cannot prove or disprove.

                    And for the record, there most certainly ARE cosmologists and physicists working on the Big Bang who believe in God.

                    The Big Bang was originated by Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître---a Belgian astronomer and Jesuit priest. Currently, the Vatican Observatory employs several Jesuit/astronomers and Jesuit/cosmologists.

                    Here is a link to the Vatican Observatory: http://www.vaticanobservatory.org/index … at-history

                    Again, religion and faith and science are not mutually-exclusive. It is dogmatism from either religion or faith or science that works to make them so.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Again, any scientist worth the label would far prefer "I don't know" to a made up, unsupportable answer designed solely to fit within a belief of a diety.

  14. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    It's always funny when Creationists try to push their nonsense as science.

    Sometimes...too funny...

    1. 0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Creationism is quite specific in its position and unrelated to the work of, for example, the Vatican Observatory.

      Roman Catholics generally, and certainly not Jesuit cosmologists specifically, are not Creationists. Creationism as literal and factual is anathema to Catholicism.

      Considerations of the moment before the Big Bang are highly nuanced intellectual conversations which  suggest, it seems, an authentic, meaningful, and sincere intersection of science, religion, philosophy, and the capacity for "what ifs" central to the human mind.

      Such considerations are not the stuff of "nonsense".

      1. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately, religion, philosophy and "what ifs" are all purely guesswork, whereas science works from observations and evidence, hence there is no grounds for an authentic, meaningful or sincere interaction.

  15. aka-dj profile image78
    aka-djposted 3 years ago

    Here's a pHd writing in favour of ID, who, contrary to your many assertions (lies) to the contrary, DOES understand evolution, but STILL chooses ID.
    Purely based on evidence SUPPORTING the ID explanation of all things.

    http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/presentation.htm

    I don't expect any of you to actually read what is said.
    But, that's your prerogative.
    Hey, I understand, you can't allow the truth to undermine what you already believe.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hypocrisy knows no bounds. I read that. It's nonsense. Then, I read other arguments from scientists who have had one on one discussions with Briney, who simply chooses to ignore everyone's rebuttals and refutations in favor of his creationist claims. He is no different than any other believer who denies evolution and uses the same old tired arguments, despite the fact he has a phd in microbiology.

  16. 0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    Here's an interesting tid bit.

    |"As an atheist evolving to agnosticism, and seeking answers to whether or not belief in God is potentially rational, my life was turned upside down 35 years ago by reading C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity." —Francis Collins

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books … ?_r=1&

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      LOL! LOL!

      http://thaumaturgical.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CS-Lewis-reasoning.jpeg

      1. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Atheists are a genetic, evolutionary anomaly.

        They think they are on the rise, but mother nature will see to it they eventually catch up to the overwhelming majority. Real humans who believe in and hold to some deity, or supernatural Spirit Being.

        There are small pockets of resistance, but they have created their own deity, FSM.
        Now, THAT's intelligence! lol

        I'm impressed.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          An genetic, evolutionary anomaly? Atheists are not "real humans"? Nature will make atheists extinct?

          I really don't know how to even begin to respond to this or if response is even possible.

          1. aka-dj profile image78
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Lighten up!

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Suggesting that some people are an anomaly or a genetic mistake and not "real" humans and suggesting that the problem of their existence will be dealt with through extinction is, at least to me, not something to be taken lightly.

              To suggest that a difference in belief removes negates one's humanity and is cause for extinction is not something to be taken lightly.

              The world in which we live---no matter how one presumes we got here, is a world in which the notion that religion or beliefs make one an inhuman anomaly or a genetic mistake or something to be extinguished is all too real and too painful in its consequence to be taken lightly.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Let's get this straight. You call us genetic evolutionary abnormalities and not real humans and then when someone says "what?" you tell him to lighten up.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I am horrified by the thought that one could find any humor or levity in any suggestion that those that do not subscribe to a particular set of beliefs and/or a particular belief system are genetic anomalies, less than human, and bound for extinction.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Horrified yes, but not surprised. Sounds similar to the blatant racism that the Mormons ascribe to.

                2. aka-dj profile image78
                  aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You forget that I don't believe, NOR aspire to hold to evolution! PERIOD.

                  Therefore, my comment was satirical at worst, and tongue-in-cheek humour at best.
                  If you can't see that, I feel for you. You have a sad view of life indeed.

                  If you care to know my REAL thoughts about you, it's that you are of infinite worth. You have a destiny that is way beyond what you can ever imagine.
                  You are loved beyond measure.
                  You have been redeemed by the creator, through the death and resurrection of Jesus.
                  If only you received it.

                  So, you just go on, and hang on to your godless evolutionary view and explanation of life.
                  Don't be too bothered by the thoughts of death, or extinction. After all, that's how evolution works.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh, that was your attempt at humour? Ha ha ha ha. Is this last post supposed to be humorous as well?

                  2. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So...is the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church---a man who accepts evolution as a fact, "godless"?

                    Are the millions of mainstream Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and faithful men and women who subscribe to other religions and belief systems and who accept evolution as factual, "godless"?

                    Are they too genetic mistakes and due for extinction?

                  3. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That is because it is completely foreign, you have no grasp of the concept whatsoever.



                    Preachy nonsense. Probably the same nonsense that aspires one to be dishonest about facts and evidence.



                    And yet, it is the scientifically illiterate that will be dealing with extinction. That's how it works. smile

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Real humans? Evolutionary anomaly?

          Well at the very least you used the word "evolutionary" in a sentence.

          1. aka-dj profile image78
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry about that.
            Maybe I should have used "ebolooshonaree". lol

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly WHAT is this "ebolooshonaree" supposed to mean?

              Is this supposed to be humor?

    2. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Lewis' dishonest arguments have been dissected and refuted by many...

      "He claimed to have been an Atheist in his youth but in all his writings about his 'new-found' faith nowhere does he explore the different possible gods and religions. Having become convinced that some phenomena must have a supernatural origin, he seems to have concluded without further questioning that this must be the Christian god of the Bible and that the Anglican Church into which he had been baptised a child must be the True Faith. It is therefore highly likely that, rather than being an Atheist in the sense of accepting that there is no evidential reason to be otherwise, and that the only reason for belief is evidence and not merely not knowing or not understanding how something works or why something is as it appears, he was simply a non-practising believer."

      http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.ca/p/cs … ected.html

      1. 0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oy vey ATM. CS Lewis is one of the most respected authors of all time... secular or religious, period. His insight into the things of God are nothing less than inspired. His work spans the genre of children's, religious, classic and fantasy. You can find a quote that can make literally anyone look bad, including Mother Teresa, which you all have already attempted.

        People, no matter who they are, no matter how awe inspiring, are still just ppl. We are all flawed, we are all less than perfect. When ppl shine, it's because they have broken out of the mold and have made a statement with their words and with their life that matter... not because they are perfect, but because they have made a difference. I hope that no one is as scrutinizing with your life as you are with everyone elses.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So what? He is as dishonest as many other believers making similar claims.



          What is "bad" are his arguments, which have been refuted by many.



          Utter nonsense. Lewis has not broken out of any mold or is inspiring at all. He is as dishonest as the day is long, just like other believers here.

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            lol.

  17. 0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    So I see that a so-called ID proponent is "educated" and therefore his opposition to evolutionary theory is valid. Let me drop some names. David Cole, Fred Leuchter, David Irving. All three have degrees in one thing or another. All three are also Holocaust deniers. So, you put weight on someone's credentials and that validates all their theories?

    Speaking of Holocaust deniers, there's no difference between the M.O. of deniers and creationists. Holocaust deniers take what we know, exploit unclear areas, twist them around and arrive at the conclusion that they're inaccurate. Creationists do the same thing with evolution. They read Answers in Genesis and other apologist sources, then use the same stock arguments to "blow holes" in evolution. That's not evidence, that's cherry-picking.

    To date, no creationist has brought any solid proof that evolution is a flimsy theory, nor have they proven the existence of any kind of deity. The burden of proof is on you people. Hell, even the Catholic Church has accepted evolution as being valid. Micro evolution has been confirmed. Macro evolution - one species going to a different species - is simply a combination of several instances of micro evolution. We can't see it happen in real-time because macro evolution takes an incredible number of years to work. So quit it with the "we haven't seen it, so it's fake" argument. I can say the same for God.

    I think the biggest flaw that displays the OP's ignorance is that he thinks evolution explains the existence of life. It doesn't. It explains the DIVERSITY of life. That's why it's entirely possible for creationists to agree with evolution as a divine mechanism for animal adaptation.

    1. aka-dj profile image78
      aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Very good argument.

      So, your position is overwhelmingly valid, right?
      "we haven't seen it, so it's true" because science fiction tells us so.

      Show me the money!
      What has evolutionary theory proven that is not beyond argument.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ring species, atavisms, and varied adaptations among the same species come to mind rather quickly.

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The horse, the donkey and the zebra. An example of evolution in progress, Three different looking animals that were once one proven by the fact that they can produce offspring, but today that offspring is sterile which they can no longer become one species (can't go back).

        Let's not forget the African and Indian Elephants.

      3. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So...are you simply unaware of the proof that does exist---and it is plentiful (proof of the Big Bang, of evolution, etc.) and meets the scientific standards of replication of experimental findings OR do you just refuse to acknowledge the proof and choose, therefore, to disregard it?

        \

  18. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    At this point they have even watched evolution happened in the lab, beyond the point of speciation.  If you don't consider that proof, well.

  19. 0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    "Evolution literature is riddled with such words as "might, could, probably, possibly, may have, we don't know, we think" etc"

    A HA! I knew it. You've almost directly quoted Ray Comfort, a Christian apologist. You didn't read any science. You lifted that off of him. And please, if you did read that somewhere (which is most likely a lie), please provide a reference.

 
working