Prove that this is how all life on earth, and man especially, came into existence in this planet. You got no evidence, come on samurais, you got no chop!!
This evolution and Big Bang stuff must be really hard to comprehend. I mean they use big words like fusion, chemistry along with biology and microevolution. We better leave all that stuff for big people who actually understand all that scary stuff. Meanwhile we'll stick to our Biblical coloring books. I like all that magic stuff and my favorite is coloring in Garden of Eden and that evil talking snake.
@paul there is still hope...christians are now mostly acknowledging evolution ...sooner or later bible would be taken as literature work than anything else...i am not so much concerned with christian world though...my concern is more about muslim world and african countries...young generation of christians dont take bible literally but most muslims take quran literally...
more like wishful thinking,their is nothing in between the monkey and the man
Ok, in other words, you can't prove it. OMG! Be happy with your terminologies which you have invented and have exclusive rights of
@pisean282311 I would be concerned more about the brainwashed Christians in this country because they end up in public office (i.e. Bush) and we all seen what became of that. Because if Bush wasn't so much of a Bible thumper, he'd think twice about risking troops' lives in a useless war that he claimed God told him to start. Then there are these poorly educated Congresspeople, most come from poorly funded schools in the Bible belt and other elected officials that are churched up that have negative effects on progress like stem cell research and other important scientific research along with equal rights that they deem as anti-Chirstian. And of course if some of these public schools get the proper funding, we wouldn't have these poorly educated people posting threads doubting evolution and the Big Bang. I just came from New Orleans and to get there, I had to travel through Missisippi and Lousinana and what I saw was shocking when traveling through these towns. City halls had duck tape holding broken windows together wilr grass grew through the cracks in the parking lot pavement. People living in trailers with the siding pealing off and tar paper covering the roof wih car tires holding them down. Cars that looked like they were on probation from the wrecking yards.The towns were crap holes but there was a prestine Baptist church about every 1-3 miles. Hmmmm.
Our so called leaders in this country will say anything for power,they are no-more Christian than you are,Christian's do not stand up for the killing of un-born babies,they do-not stand up for gay marrage,they would-not get up there and lie about everything they do,and they would-not kick the Lord God out of our country the way these evil so called leaders have done !!!
A positive claim has to be proved, not an explanation. Evolution is a theory, an explanation. It has to be invalidated by showing a contradiction!
If you are referring to Abiogenesis, please read my hub on that topic: http://christopherjrex.hubpages.com/hub … uire-Magic Otherwise, why do you think scientists consider all lifeforms on this planet to be part of an evolutionary “tree?” It’s because, genetically speaking, we are all related. You can trace any “leaf” (organism alive today) back to its ancestral branch, trunk, and stump. This pattern of natural selection via descent with modification is replicated in the fossil record. The theory of evolution is as sound as the law of gravity. It is supported by countless scientific results by thousands of independent scientists all over the world. No other hypothesis has been supported by sufficient evidence (with >95% statistical confidence) to become a scientific theory of how life developed on this planet. As Motown2Chitown was kind enough to point out, Science is actually all about proving things wrong in order to deduce what is “right.” After >150 years, nobody has been able to adequately disprove Evolution by natural selection.
Logical fallacies. Anyway, no scientist has ever proved Evolution. If you would forcefully say that, then do. Makes no difference. This just like how Clergy and the Mollahs indoctrinate people. The only difference is that they would force you to believe God instead of Evolution!.
In a sense, you are correct. Science never “proves” anything because it doesn’t claim to know the “truths” of the universe. Therefore, the only thing Science serves to do is “disprove” every possible alternative in the hopes of approaching the “truth.” Science, unlike Religion, is flexible to newer/better ideas that serve to aid our ability to comprehend/predict the universe. If you could, please elaborate on the “logical fallacies” that you claim were present in my statement.
Logical fallacies? Here are those. If you need explanations, then feel free to ask... The list is quite brief, anyway.
1) Otherwise, why do you think scientists consider all lifeforms on this planet to be part of an evolutionary “tree?” It’s because, genetically speaking, we are all related.
2) The theory of evolution is as sound as the law of gravity.
3) Science is actually all about proving things wrong in order to deduce what is “right.
4) After >150 years, nobody has been able to adequately disprove Evolution by natural selection.
An explanation for each was inherent in my request for you to elaborate on these supposed "logical fallacies."
Here you go-
1) All lifeforms being genetically related doesn't conclude that this relation is an effect of evolution. What you said there is a pristine example of using logic to twist reality.
2) The 'theory' of evolution isn't as sound as the 'law' of gravity. The law of gravity can be witnessed and has practical implications. While the theory of evolution is merely a belief.
3) Science is not all about proving things wrong in order to deduce what is right. 'Deduction' is simply one of the methods employed by people who are practicing science. You have confused a method of investigation, with the investigation itself.
4) The theory of evolution has never been proved, so there is no question of disproving it. What you said there is just like saying that because 'nobody has been able to adequately disprove' the theory of God, so it must be true.
Wow! Can't see the logical proof for evolution nor the logical contradiction to creation, but can see "logical fallacies" that has nothing to do with evolution, keep it up.
Which one? So far I have only asked questions, is that a religion too?
"Au contraire, I think it is you who got to explain. You are the person who says evolution didn't happen."
O.k., I understood, pointing out logical fallacies is a religion!
You mean apart from all the experiments that prove that animals adapt and those adaptations are passed along genetically?
You mean that fact that you can own a dog, not a wolf, or the fact that you can trace back evolution to a bacterial stage?
Your understanding of evolution makes one ponder, actually. When did adaptation equal to evolution? When did anyone could ever prove that gradual adaptation leads to the arrival of new species? And most importantly, when did anyone prove that this is the way that a bacterium became a human being?
Don't move in air.
Taurus2.....How is it that you can so easily believe that an invisible being took a rib out of a man, drew a picture in the dirt of a woman, and suddenly a living, breathing, reproductive human beings were created, but you cannot believe factual science?
Where are the facts? And anyway, when did I talk about any 'invisible being'?
That's fine. We can scratch the "invisible being" reference and just call him "God". So again I ask, How is it that you can so easily believe that an invisible being took a rib out of a man, drew a picture in the dirt of a woman, and suddenly a living, breathing, reproductive human beings were created, but you cannot believe factual science?
The facts are in the tangible proof that science can create life. Embryos can be grown in test tubes, Clones have been created, human ears for reconstructive surgery are grown on the bodies of mice and human forearms. Science has and does take God completely out of the equation. We do not need God to create life. It's been proven and done. Can you show me proof that God took a rib from Adam and drew a Eve in the dirt and she came to be?
You are dangerously becoming like a religious fundamentalist, and talking as if you have something to 'defend'.
Anyway, I still didn't get any fact that prove that the theory of evolution is true. And, when did I talk about God?
So, either you haven't made the effort to see the mountains of facts that support evolution or you are just denying them. Which is it?
Which facts? Bring them on so we can all see it! Or is it some cryptic poetry that only you and your colleagues can fully comprehend?
Or have you just made it your agenda to convince people that that theory is true, knowing well that it's nothing but junk? Which is it?
Another argument from incredulity. Have you actually even read anything about evolution?
I never found it interesting to become a priest of a religion. I understand things
"Anyway, I still didn't get any fact that prove that the theory of evolution is true"
Can you prove it untrue? How do you believe life was created Taurus2? If not by God or evolution, then how? I would be interested in hearing your theory, since you have denounced the two most common theories.
May I suggest a good read for you? No matter your answer, I will anyway. Read "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"by Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975). Good stuff
Here you go...
"No matter how high evidence was stacked up against evolution in the past, Darwinists could always slip through the "...it COULD have happened..." loophole. As long as genetic mutations and slight physical changes (microevolution) were evident, interspecies transitions (macroevolution) had to be accepted as at least plausible. Not any more. In five brief pages, this article closes the Darwinian loophole, and evolutionary science will never be the same!"
...-David Summers, Publisher/Editor
every scientist who goes against the theory is banished
Prove the theory of evolution eh?
Take one generation of life that reproduces, study the offspring. If mutations and variations in the genetic code have occurred than evolution has occurred.
Evolution is just genetic variation in a population over time, most of the changes are very small, that's where the TIME comes in. These small changes can, over the course of hundreds, thousands of even millions of generations, leave a population so genetically removed from its ancestor population that it has become a new species. This event is called speciation and has been observed both in the lab and in the wild.
There are plenty of books which provide you with evidence, not to mention laboratory experiments on mayflies, and then there are things like dogs, cows, and other products of evolution that has been steadied by human hand rather than natural selection.
Good God!! Books provide evidence of evolution?
Ahh we have a comedian who uses his art to shield from the act that books often contain information and data.
No more than "Bible Stories" provide proof that God exists....
I am torn when it comes to believing in evolution. Could it be that God created everything and made everything evolve? I find it hard to believe that we evolved from ape like creatures.
Perhaps, you need to take the time to understand evolution rather than just trying to believe in it, that way, you'll be able to make an intelligent decision and you'll need not have to believe we evolved from ape like creatures.
I will echo what ATM said. I work in a med school and have to video record a lot of lectures. I am amazed daily at what evolution has produced, but rather than believe it impossible because I lack the full understanding, I have sought to advance my knowledge of how humans and other animals evolved.
You find it difficult to believe in evolution when you are surrounded by physical evidence, but you believe in God even though you have absolutely no evidence of. Someone has done a number on you.
If you need evidence of evolution look no further than the colour of you skin. Humans adapt/evolve over time to new environments.
How does the color of skin prove evolution?
"Someone has done a number on you."
Well, ever notice that people who originated closer to the equator have very dark skin, but people in northern climates have much lighter skin? Lighter skin evolved because of the need for humans to get vitamin D from the sun. With less sunlight people with darker skin are unable to get enough vitamin D, so nature selected (natural selection) lighter skin for that environment. If natural selection doesn't occur we wouldn't have different looking people all over the world. We would all look exactly the same. Humans evolve to new environments and that is proof of natural selection and evolution.
Try harder, junior
"Skin color is one of the most conspicuous ways in which humans vary and has been widely used to define human races. Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive , and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 8400904032
Yup, skin colour is adaptive. Adaptive meaning (modify, alter, change, adjust, readjust, convert, redesign, restyle, refashion, remodel, reshape, revamp, rework, rejig, redo, reconstruct, reorganize; customize, tailor; improve, amend, refine, tweak). Evolution is just adaptation to an environment. Thanks for helping me proof Evolution in humans, next we can look at the horse, donkey, zebra and the ass. This is further proof that when left along in an environment changes in DNA occur in an attempt to adapt.
You were a big help thanks.
SPECIATION AND MACROEVOLUTION
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2 … 1266502901
Thanks again for helping me make my point. It's not an accident that humans share 98% of our DNA with chimps. Darwin didn't no anything about DNA, but DNA confirmed Evolution.
You're gonna have to do a bit of homework:
http://cpl.bibliocommons.com/search?t=s … formats=BK
Keep feeding yourself with bogus secondhand BS that other people sell to make their wallets thicker.
What you are talking about is abiogenesis. Not evolution.
For evidence of evolution (albeit artifical selection), check out how the English peppered moth has evolved in the last hundred years of so.
Abiogensis is the scientific study of the origin of life, which can be directly compared to creation. One of the more popular concepts of abiogensis is panspermia which says life was seeded on Earth from space. Mostly like bacteria on a fragment of rock. The choice then becomes God or aliens. Is Panspermia or Creation more satisfying than the alternative?
Panspermia fails in that it begs the question as to where and how that bacteria on a fragment of rock originated?
Why not alien super-beings creating those lovely bacteria?
Or, on a more rational note, why not simply assume an unidentifiable phenomenon causing a sophisticated bio-chemical reaction in a primordial pond?
So you have three choices...
(1) God and creationism
(2) Panspermia and alien lifeforms are responsible of all life on Earth (but no answer to where the alien life originated).
(3) unknown and unspecified fantastic event happen to to primordial organic compounds.
Which is more satisfying to you?
Actually, none of those sound satisfying.
I prefer the one on which the evidence supports.
Which one has evidence? I wasn't aware there was any evidence for abiogenesis.
Exactly, there are theories and experiments, but no hard evidence.
Considering that scientists estimate abiogenesis (life arsing from inorganic matter through natural processes) occurred about 3.5-3.9 billion years ago, the conditions of the earth and the environment upon it present then no longer exist today, hence scientists must attempt to synthesize those conditions in laboratory experiments, also taking into consideration the time required for abiogenesis to take place.
However, Stromatolites date back to that era and contain fossilized bacteria microbes dating 2.75 billion years ago, perhaps the hard evidence we were looking for.
"However, Stromatolites date back to that era and contain fossilized bacteria microbes dating 2.75 billion years ago, perhaps the hard evidence we were looking for."
-That's a description of a certain reality. That's not a hard evidence for evidence for abiogenesis.
Your blatant denial is not evidence of an explanation for the denial.
Hey, Shelby, there was a mistake there. I typed 'evidence' twice, out of mistake. Now I see you have already caught me up, by mistakenly using 'denial' twice.
Actually, those 'fossilized bacteria' that you mentioned, are a myth. Biological life is actually a very recent invention/creation.
How about the Miller-Urey experiement?
Please read my hub on Abiogenesis in order to better understand how "realistic" and practical the theory truly is: http://christopherjrex.hubpages.com/hub … uire-Magic
I have a small piece of dinosaur crap that I use as a paper weight. That good enough? Fossilized. But still crap.
Not that I believe we evolved from a T-Rex. Lol.
I know ... I know.
But hey - I like the fact that you 'get it' too, so yeah, kudos, ok
There is a hundred billion times more evidence for evolution than there is for the existence of magic beings.
Don't answer this guy, Shades. He's a big old .... well, he's not a legitimate poster. He used to be, but now he has a big axe to grind with HP so he's created like, a billion accounts to antagonize any and everyone. I just made my smartass remark to play along for a minute.
That's him too: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/103995
That comment of yours went under the 'hate speech' category, howdown!!
"He used to be, but now he has a big axe to grind with HP so he's created like, a billion accounts to antagonize any and everyone."
- On what basis did you say that? I am a newcomer who is trying to established myself on hubpages, and make like $3800 per month. I am no entertainment-seeking dude who is using this website as a hobby.
What do you use this website for? Is your ultimate aim is to seek an innocent victim whom you can sting and poison? Good luck with that! You're in the wrong place. Go find a crybaby whinnie to empty the vessel. Get a life, slacker!
Woo hoo! This'll be my first forum ban ever! After they reinstate my posting privileges, I'll let you know how I spent the time.
I beg to differ. I think the multiple voices in my head are plenty enough evidence to prove the existence of magic beings.
@shades agreed...there is zero proof of god and his role in creation of human ...In comparison evolution has far more proofs...also it is most consistent theory in understanding the world ...i dont know what makes people believe in fictions like grand daddy wihich has zero proof and question something which atleast have more proofs in comparison...
Still, you are unable to show even one. Disappointing, nervous system!!
@taurus i dont have to show to u...because already there is thousands of papers published..if u are honest to urself , read those papers and be unbiased...i am sure u wuld understand because it is not rocket science ...nor is it fiction like garden , snake etc...It is pure proof based thing...just be honest to urself...all the best..i trust your logical brain totally because it contributed more than any imaginary being in our species journey..
Papers don't make truth. There are thousands of papers in psychology, psychiatry, astrology and on and on. Does that make them true? If Evolution is provable, then prove that! It's your claim! People, except a few gullible, aren't going to believe what Charles Darwin dreamt in his head, unless you show evidence.
@taurus u want prove right?...then please allow me to prove...first read all papers...see evidence...email and discuss with evolutionary scientist and then get back...if u can prove theory of evolution wrong , u would win noble price in biology...no religion has been able to prove it wrong till date...it is most consistent theory to understand species...right from fossils to evolution of eye to evolution of brain , proofs are extraordinary...for imaginary stories like creation theory proofs are zero...when u can believe in zero proof theory from so many years , I am just inviting u one month of serious open minded study...if u are still not convinced u can continue to belief in fantasies...i am trusting ur logical brain again because that made us reach so far not fantasies...
@pisean282311 You do realize that you're wasting your time trying to explain logic to people that are in total denial when it comes to evolution. It's like teaching algebra to a guppy.
Well, you can't teach a goat that the law of gravity is different from the theory of gravitation. How hard someone tries, they will be in cocksure denial! Goog God!
@pisean u want prove right?...then please allow me to prove...first read all papers...see evidence...email and discuss with 'Life came from space' scientist and then get back... so on and so on...
The theory of evolution has not been proven. So, there is no question of disproving it. Good luck winning "noble price"!
@taurus so u dont want to work...got that....then u wont have worked on bible too...u wuld have believed?...good luck winning best follower tag.pope would love it...
Well, I have checked the theory of evolution. Otherwise I wouldn't be saying all these stuff. There is no evidence that proves that theory. Meanwhile, some people have made claims that life on earth came from outer space. They are preparing their evidences for peer review. Did you know all that? Are you interested learning about that?
Go back to sleep! Worship Darwin!! OMG!
u dont seem to be christian by ur responses...r u christian ?
coming to ur point ...yes i am aware about that like am aware about our ancestors attempt like bible and most of bible myths are copied from their ancestors work...so m aware about that too....here question is which is most consistent ...and evolution wins the vote in terms of proofs...bible and 300 other holy books have zero chances ...so it should be discarded...now we should look at what other theories can compete with evolution...right now only evolution has given any proof...
...And that proof you're unable to show, unable to even name.
@taurus fossils...big tangible proof...eyes ....brain...bacterias resistance of medicine...proof is there but u dont want to see it...i dont know why u want to believe in fairy tale?...u might be having some reason for that...u best can answer but u seem to be curious being not closed minded fellow...i can just keep trusting ur logical brain which made u come so far and not fantasies...
first i hope ur agree with most christians that adam,eve are mere analogies...then u can list down various theories and see which gives u proof....physical proof not concepts...which is most consistent theory?...answer is evolution...so instead of laughing u should question why u r resisting?...is it fear or something else?
Fossils? -Where is there a fossil of a 'missing link'?
Bacteria developing antibiotic resistance? -That's adaptation. It has nothing to do with evolution.
@taurus having patience we would get missing link too...we didnt knew anything about it few hundred years back...now we have a theory which is most consistent...ur argument about missing link is right but we would get that too...
There YOU have a belief, pisean282311. Your belief is that there is a 'missing link' and that it will be discovered.
*sniff* Does that mean I'm never getting into Hogwarts?
Ah yes, the proliferating sock puppet guy. I didn't bother to look at the empty profile info. Saw you jump in, thought, hey, I'm bored and procrastinating on book 3, so...
I will stop visiting this thread.
Nice to see you, though. Hit a rough patch with book 3? Which, btw, I can't believe you're already writing.
This one went as a 'personal attack'. Get a life slacker! Stop wasting time antagonizing innocent people. Go sleep and write a book in your dream.
"Anyway, no scientist has ever proved Evolution". - that's simply not true.
Evolved resistance to antibiotics in bacteria is probably the easiest and most clear cut example of evolution in action.
Evolution is actually compatible with Christianity, provided that you don't believe that God created the world in 7 literal 24 hour days. So many Christians seem to think that its an either or debate.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but resistance to antibiotics is an adaptation. Nowhere it sheds any light to the mystery how human beings came into this planet. You simply have a belief system, the belief in evolution.
@taurs u r right...it is adaptation...perfectly right...and when u add on series of adaptation u have different species...u r getting closer...congrats...
Bacteria developing antibiotic resistance? -That's adaptation. It has nothing to do with evolution. The concept that gradual adaptations leads to the origin of new species, is an imagination. Good luck with your Darwin deity!
@taurus omg... i was wasting my time till now?...adaptation has nothing to do with survival and evolution??????????....what did u read about evolution then till now?...coming back to my invitation...please read evolution again and then get back...
Good God! Where did you read that adaptation leads to the birth of new species?!!
Go back to sleep!! You're really wasting time here
@taurus i am...because u r closed enough not to even study evolution and from ur argument i am now convinced that u know nothing about evolution...if u can accept my invitation with open mind then only there is point of debate or else u can live for ever in your fanatisies...how to agrue with close mindness? i guess u love to sleep
@taurus u r right...i normally dont argue with close minded people who dont accept to even give try to understand theories...i read ur hub and thought differently for u.....one thing can be concluded from your writeups out here that u dont know much about evolution...u have read few things about it and made ur conclusions...unless u r serious to know about it keep sleeping may be in sleeping u might get evolved into open minded being
Well, you could't provide any evidence that adaptation leads to the origin of new species. You couldn't even name it. Thanks anyway, for giving us a picture of how you normally think ...
"one thing can be concluded from your writeups out here that u dont know much about evolution...u have read few things about it and made ur conclusions...unless u r serious to know about it keep sleeping"
Thanks for making things easier Good luck dreaming Darwin deity! OMG!
whose us?...ya u made things easier for me by narrating your way of thinking...cant talk for others...
coming to ur point ...u r right...evidence that adaptation leads to origin of new species is circumstantial not actual...we can link it...and that is pt i was making...and thats why i said it can be concluded that u dont know much about evolution....darwin is deity for u?...so u r rebelling about ur deity? ...if it is so , then dont point in arguing...ur personal reasons cant be countered by evidence...those r ur reasons for ur deity...
"...u r right...evidence that adaptation leads to origin of new species is circumstantial not actual...we can link it...and that is pt i was making..."
When did you make that point earlier? Good God! Evolution must have given people some capacity for discernment!!
People, figure it out, OMG!!
(pisean282311 just edited his above comment to add more details, and he is now talking about 'missing link' and stuff. ha ha, LMAO, he has 'Theory of Evolution' in his fingertips )
@taurus2 When did you make that point earlier? Good God! Evolution must have given people some capacity for discernment!! ---
would u allow me or are u here to make all out here wrong?...
coming to editing...its my right to edit my comments , guess u didnt evolve from dictatorship
if u allow me to put my point here it is...
add adaptation and u have new species...did i make this point?...
u said is there any proof of origin of species...answer is no...evolution is not grand daady magic story....like most things in nature , it takes time...
so what do we have....we have series of fossils which can be linked...this is circumstantial evidence...do we have missing link as of now?...answer is no...u r right in that too...
but does that nullify linkages ?...answer is no...the most consistent theory is evolution .
If you like to believe that, pisean282311, then.....
Adaptation to the environment enables one organism to survive, then it dies and so does its adaptation. You are right, its not evolution. But adaptations that are passed on to the next generation are examples of evolution.
Add up enough of these small changes and an organism becomes so different that it can be classed as a separate species. This is called speciation. It is easiest to see in bacteria due to their short lifespan. In mammals this occurs over a much longer timespan. Plenty of evidence exists suggesting that this is the case in animal species. Even Darwin managed to come up with some pretty clear cases all those years ago. Speciation of finches in an isolated community is the classic.
If you want absolute proof that humans evolved from fish to amphibians to apes to where we are today, then you are not going to find it. Is that the point of this thread?
Are you trying to prove that evolution doesn't exist, ergo God does?
"You are right, its not evolution. But adaptations that are passed on to the next generation are examples of evolution."
-Nope, you got that elsewhere. There is no evidence that all these adaptations added up for a long time, and we would witness the arrival of a new species.
As mentioned, there are examples when bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics and stuff. Those are adaptations, and it's nowhere becoming a new species.
So, what you're saying is that we should be able to observe in real time now a process that took millions of years to accomplish?
Well, guess what, we are observing evolution.
So, you really want some evidence to show evolution working and a new species emerging as a result?
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technol … ecies.html
Well, that blogger posted experimental findings, which he claims, have been discovered by a group of scientists in Britain. That's no good than what Darwin found more than a century ago. That's adaptation, I am getting tired repeating again and again. Not evolution.
"An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection."
Natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. Humans can themselves manipulate the breedings of crops or certain animals to get some specific qualities in a species. Nowhere that leads to the creation of a new species.
What you get is merely a transitory variety within a species. That natural selection led to the arrival of man, is nothing more than a complicated belief system. Well, we have priests for this belief system as well
By the way, natural selection is a theory as well! No one ever proved it, or could explain its mechanism. I hope the priests can help us here to understand more their belief system
When a human does it, it is artificial selection. And artificial selection can and has produced new species. The dog and the wolf are different species.
How do you know that dogs and wolves are two different species? Prove that they are two different species, and prove that human beings were responsible for their 'differentiation'. Anyway, artificial selection doesn't create new species. Natural selection, if such a thing exists, would neither (natural selection have never been observed in real life conditions).
No one knows how life originated and how all these species came into the world. This natural selection is your belief system. Quit worshiping.
LOL! That's pretty much common knowledge. Try looking this stuff yourself before posting silly remarks so you don't look so foolish.
Of course, they are the 'common knowledge' of the evolution believers. Those claims posted above, are all legitimate. You seem to have no evidence to show. Quit all these blatherings, or you end up being a Darwinian monkey
You honestly are incapable of finding this for yourself? And think using a fake user name and avatar on a random forum discussion is the place to prove an accepted scientific theory wrong?
No wonder your religion has caused so many conflicts.
Ok sister. You're funny. Prove all those claims wrong, if you can. You can't hang, junior
Fake? Who is fake? My sister Maita loves wearing masks, so she is fake? Where is Maita? The pretty zzly Maita?
(Mark Knowles uses language which is strikingly similar to what this Evolution Guy used to practice. Uncanny )
No, common knowledge of the world. Perhaps, you haven't had the opportunity to read anything about evolution.
No evidence? I found about 1.4 million recent papers and articles on the evidence of evolution just on Google Scholar alone. Is that what you call no evidence?
Ok, dear priest, show evidence. It's your claim, prove it to be true
There is no evidence there which proves evolution happened and is still continuing. It's all made-up arguments they have, evo priest.
If you really had something to show, you wouldn't be hiding there. You would have had the courage to post at least one link.
Remember what happened last time when you posted a link?
LMAO! Hang there, Samaritan
Psycheskinner has provided you with an answer to that.
Entirely false, argument from incredulity.
Actually untrue. Their are evolutionary paths that can be traced back to the very beginnings of life, go eat some shrimp and you are eating an ancestor of one of the first animals to have evolved as a predator on this planet.
and missing links, evolutionary gaps etc are a common misplaced argument, because everytime the gap is filled, people go and find another one. The truth of the matter is that looking for fossils is hard and unprofitable work, but 'gaps' are being filled regularly.
Everytime I hear someone say 'but there is no link between this and that' they seemingly forget how important that particular link was, as soon as it gets filled, and go find a new gap.
Every time a new fossil is discovered, a gap is filled, and evolution is proved accurate once again.
What they could ever present are fossils linking varieties, not any two completely different species.
However, those 'scientists' tried several times to establish that they got the transitional fossils. Those attempts, very sadly, were caught outright to be frauds.
Those adaptions lead to new species.
small adjustments over time build up. You get different variations of the same species, but as different variations die off, some remain.
Well, Taurus2, I can't prove evolution, but I've seen plenty of evidence that shows it to be likely. Layers of species progressing through time, becoming more complex from about 500 million years ago to today.
God created this universe and all the laws in it. I see no problem with God creating laws that led to evolution.
Now, as far as the timeline in the Bible, it's all interpretation. And humility requires me not to read with preconceived notions. My cup must be empty, otherwise God cannot fill it.
Even scientists, who have any measure of success, use humility and restraint.
Using these, plus the faith that answers were in there, led me to the discovery of a code in Genesis that led to a timeline compatible with those of science. It even answered the age-old puzzle about the "daughters of men" and the real reason behind Noah's Flood.
Homo sapiens does look a lot like other species, especially Homo neanderthalensis. But I suspect that this may have been a case of parallel evolution. And humans may not have evolved, but Homo neanderthalensis did.
Humans were, quite possibly a special case, because God needed a way for His children to have continuity of consciousness and an ability to create civilization. Why? Because without the gifts of speech and civilization, we would not be able to find salvation -- the reawakening of the children of God -- to turn from the darkness of depending on physicality, to the light of spiritual dependence upon God -- the Source of all.
The new Genesis timeline pegs Noah's Flood at 27,970 BC. That's right when Neanderthal ceased to exist as a species (broad scientific consensus). Hanky panky with the wrong species could've resulted in a hybrid that could not speak, negotiate, find their ways to forgiveness, or to building civilization. That seems to have been the reason for the Flood. All forms of "violence," "wickedness" and "corruption of flesh" (as mentioned in Genesis 6) that men have done since the Flood could not have been the reason for the Flood. The only corruption of flesh that would threaten God's purpose would be genetic pollution with a non-human species.
But the new Genesis timeline pegs Adam (the earliest tribe) at 10,454,130 BC. That's in the middle of the Miocene Epoch -- when "giants" roamed the earth that dwarfed today's modern elephants.
This really throws a wrench in anthropologists' timeline for Homo sapiens.
And the really sad part, for me, is that the fact that it took an act of God to create humans, implies that a civilization building species could not have originated on its own. Neanderthal -- the closest thing offered by "nature," was too "selfish" and reactive to build civilization. That means that all the star systems out there may be teaming with life, but none of them may have a civilization. No Klingons for some future Captain Kirk to battle.
Thanks for giving us a brief idea of your belief system.
@Taurus2 There YOU have a belief, pisean282311. Your belief is that there is a 'missing link' and that we would find that out.
right...u r right in it....since we got most links , it is my belief that we would find missing link too...
but how does that change anything?...let us assume we fail to find missing link....does that give any strong evidence to nullify evolution theory?...
this is accepted theory not because it is popular but because it is most consistent theory with findings....circumstantial proof...
You have a belief that the "Theory of Evolution" will one day be proved to be true.
@pisean282311 - There is no "missing link". That was an early 20th century name coined by the media at the time. To disprove evolution, one has to nullify biology, chemistry, DNA, geology, and earth science.
The additional complex DNA strands and loss of body hair from neanderthal to man are not all that logical. Any scientists can make up a "theory" to fit their agenda. There is not 100% scientific proof this is the way it happened. However, it is the most plausible for the masses in the scientific community to believe & passed down from there. Just as it was the most plausible to believe the earth was flat centuries ago. I believe in the thread title. Prove it is true without a doubt. Science does not rely on biblical passages or magical theories. Where do I stand? part magical part science.
Oh please the loss of hair is a natural progression after we started to find other ways to keep warm and protect ourselves. Do you realized how many diseases and medical issues occur from hair?
a rash from dandruff might be fine in human society but go back a few years and that sore could become a fatal infection.
The loss of hair can be explained easily through natural selection.
You've a fantastic belief system! There are some folks who hold a belief that aliens dropped human beings in this planet. I guess you can fuse this alien concept into your ingenuous belief system, to construct a sophistically complicated belief system!!
Like, for example a supreme intelligent being, who is un-created, created the less intelligent humans- who couldn't evolve from lesser forms, nor can't be always here, but had to be created?
OMG! You're going in a fantastic direction!! Keep that up, dude, and we might even witness the birth of a brand new religion!
Well! why not all of you have a look of Harun Yahya work who officially declined the Darwinist.
http://harunyahya.com/list/type/1/name/ … /undefined
Have you actually ever read through any of those books? You can find far less nonsensical bullshit in children's stories... He probably supports what's going on in Louisiana too: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/ … ax-dollars
Well! its up to understanding and difference in beliefs.....I would refer Holy Quran to read.....and if want better understanding can search for Dr. Zakir Naik, on youtube......an Indian Muslim Scholar will probably have the best answers.
I would like to hear some proof too. All I've read are just some sarcastic condescending remarks which is not a constructive way to explain a theory.
To take a break and jump off topic for a brief moment, I know that there are a lot of authors here and I just wanted to take a sec and let you all know that Google has updated their Webmaster Guidelines.
Here's the link for the updated version: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bi … swer=35769
Darwin's theory of natural selection can proven via the self-mutating gene, evolution is very real. However, it does not explain how the genes actually came into existence in the first place (although it was attempted).
The evidence in support of the theory of evolution is incontrovertible. There is so much evidence available now that to attempt to deny it is arrogant, willful ignorance. I do not try and argue that there is no God... but for others to try and claim that evolutionary theory is not the best available explanation for the current state of living organisms is quite frankly laughable. If those religious fundementalists who disagree with me, would first like to have a look through the explanations and evidence provided in the following links, then make objections to specific instances of evidence... feel free. Blanket denials without reference to any basis in the real world or the information that we have available about it through hundreds of years of scientific research, are not worthy of response.
URLs leading to explanations and evidence in support of evolutionary theory:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar … 0/lines_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar … history_23
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar … history_16
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar … rgstrom_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar … 01_warming
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10 … tists-say/
If this is not enough, then tell me why it hasn't convinced you. If you cannot come up with a specific objection that clearly disproves or discounts the particular aspect of evolutionary theory that you are attempting to debunk, then don't bother. Anyone who is capable of debate will instantly discount your argument if it is not backed up or thought through logically. Neither should you reference any premise that cannot be tested as a basis for an argument. Evolutionary theory has evidence from plenty of scientific trials using species that have rapid breeding cycles. This is undeniable, check these links out if you don't believe me:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 090021.htm
Do you understand the term 'macro evolution'?
Micro and Macro evolution are terms made up to discredit evolution by eliminating the immediate example of evolution by just calling the example's micro evolution. Then they can make the ridiculous claim that Macro evolution is impossible because we don't see any of that.
what came first -
the chicken or the egg?
and where did it come from?
Neither. They evolved at the same time from an animal that was similar to a chicken.
There's a hub for that http://greensleeves-hubs.hubpages.com/h … eensleeves
How does the Bible answer that question?
The egg clearly came first. The egg has been used by reptiles, birds and dinosaurs for millions of years. Now, if the question was "what came first the chicken or the chicken egg" that would be a little more complex, but the answer would still be an egg. The domesticated chicken would have been bread for it's yumminess much like we breed dog for the cuteness. The first chicken would have come from a chicken egg. You just can't get a chicken without an egg.
Science quantifies doubt. Evolutionary theory has far less doubt attached to it than any other rival theory, as an explanation of the development of organisms over time.
To make make a solid case for evolution would require at least several thousand words. To disprove it would take just a single fossil to be found that is out of chronological order - so far no one has done this.
Regarding how life began, we simply don't know yet. The trend appears to be that simple life forms gradually developed into more and more complex ones, so the earliest form of life is likely to be very simple.
The ground breaking discoveries relating to genetics were a huge step forward in understanding the origins of life. Discovery of any form of life on Mars will also help to solve the problem.
Simple life can (and does) develop from abiotic materials. Amino acids can form spontaneously in many places throughout the universe. It only takes five nucleotides (which are not much more complex than amino acids) to bond together and form a piece of RNA capable of performing the simplest functions of life. Life just gets more complex and intricate from there via the process of Evolution. For details on Abiogenesis, please read the following hub: http://christopherjrex.hubpages.com/hub … uire-Magic
"To disprove it would take just a single fossil to be found that is out of chronological order"
-Is that the only evidence that you have?
by thetruthhurts2009 11 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You can stop reading and leave now, but if you seek the truth you are most welcome to...
by Gaizy 8 years ago
With all the evidence for the theory of evolution, why do some people still believe otherwise.Once you have got your head around the theory of evolution, it's pretty obvious that it's close to how it must work. After all, animal breeders do the same thing when they selectively breed their stock....
by Jacob 8 years ago
No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth....
by SaiKit 10 years ago
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of "False Delimma" Just because you can't prove a theory or belief, doesn't mean...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 11 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
by Sean Thomas Gartland 9 years ago
If you have any evidence please present it.
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|