A big problem for Evolution?

[talisman]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

post 51

[Tisthammerw]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

I already cited the relevant passage from by bio textbook.

May I ask where exactly did you cite the passages that pertain to the pattern of the gaps in the fossil record? Perhaps you could provide me with a post number?

post 51

Nice post, but it provides nothing to explain pattern 2 of the fossil record.

[das1ngerplayer]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

It's not hard to invent stories to make any idea seem true. No matter what facts say you have to realize that those "facts" are only science. Almost everything in science is just theories, nothing is proven. There are some things in science I believe are true but I also believe in God. It doesn't make sense to believe just one or the other. If you really think about it scientists have to true evidence of what happened millions of years ago. And you can't deny that the Bible is true, it's not everyday people make up huge stories like that.

If you want to make your choice on to believe in Creationism or Evolution I'd say it would be best to study both. Don't believe what science says right away. Just remember that.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

And you can't deny that the Bible is true, it's not everyday people make up huge stories like that.

Uh, yes they do. This doesn't mean the Bible is completely a fabrication by any means, but what you say isn't the slightest bit of evidence proving the Bible to be true.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[das1ngerplayer]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Originally Poeted by GuidoHunter
Uh, yes they do. This doesn't mean the Bible is completely a fabrication by any means, but what you say isn't the slightest bit of evidence proving the Bible to be true.

--Guido

The evidence proving the Bible to be true in in the book. Read it and it will talk about things far into the past. Some of things things refer to what science tell us, other things contradict science. And, no it's not everyday a book is made that has billions of followers who look to it for guidance. (Then again who knows, there could be some bogus book about science or life that people look to ).

[GuidoHunter]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

The evidence proving the Bible to be true in in the book.

Do you have any idea how illogical this is? My mind is so boggled upon reading this that I can't even come up with the correct logical fallacy? Circular logic, perhaps? False premise? Hell, I'm sure it contains several different ones.

David Koresh thought he was the Messiah. He said he was the Messiah, so he must be.

Well, we really screwed up when we killed him, then! By your logic, we killed the son of God!

That's like trying to define a word by using the word in your definition.

(Then again who knows, there could be some bogus book about science or life that people look to ).

Yeah, like the Bible. Book about life that people look to. Maybe bogus, maybe not.

God is a construct; he can't be proven or disproven.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[das1ngerplayer]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Do you have any idea how illogical this is? My mind is so boggled upon reading this that I can't even come up with the correct logical fallacy? Circular logic, perhaps? False premise? Hell, I'm sure it contains several different ones.

David Koresh thought he was the Messiah. He said he was the Messiah, so he must be.

Well, we really screwed up when we killed him, then! By your logic, we killed the son of God!

That's like trying to define a word by using the word in your definition.



Yeah, like the Bible. Book about life that people look to. Maybe bogus, maybe not.

God is a construct; he can't be proven or disproven.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Technically if you think about it, it was mans fault Jesus was put on the cross. And there have been many people claiming to be the son of God, none of which actually are. Sometimes you just have to have morals and beliefs. If you don't then I cannot help you at all. I, as you can most likely tell, believe in God and many of my thoughts come from my morals. Not all can be explained and I know that but neither can all science so we're stuck with our own opinions.

[Sword_of_Gardenia]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Ok, here's what floors me about evolution. First of all, if species have been evolving over time, why don't we see species today that are in the intermediate stage of evolution? A creature halfway between a bird and a reptile? Or maybe a fish (or some other organism) still trying to evolve into some unknown new creature? If evolution is completely fact, and things don't stop evolving, there would be organisms that are still changing, developing. Secondly, at what point did organisms start reproducing and to start needing another organism to reproduce another? When did we go from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? Did sexual organs just pop out of the blue? Were they completely, perfectly functional without any mistake even when they were not quite developed? And at what point was that? Thirdly, Darwin is extremely uncertain throughout his writings (see link). I'm not saying anything against science, I think it has greatly improved life in general. It's evolution I have a problem with, and what I don't consider "true science" as nothing can be proven.

http://www.antipas.org/books/evolution_science_bible/evo_02.html

[BluE_MeaniE]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

First of all, if species have been evolving over time, why don't we see species today that are in the intermediate stage of evolution? A creature halfway between a bird and a reptile? Or maybe a fish (or some other organism) still trying to evolve into some unknown new creature? If evolution is completely fact, and things don't stop evolving, there would be organisms that are still changing, developing.

So, there's a bit of a misunderstanding about evolution here. No one says evolution has a "direction". In a sense, everything may be in an intermediate stage, but evolution doesn't necessarily predict what a species is going to become. And oganisms are indeed still changing and developing.

Secondly, at what point did organisms start reproducing and to start needing another organism to reproduce another? When did we go from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? Did sexual organs just pop out of the blue? Were they completely, perfectly functional without any mistake even when they were not quite developed? And at what point was that?

While I don't know the answer to this one specifically, nothing just pops out of the blue perfectly functional as it is now. It doesn't work that way. It's been demonstrated often how mechanisms in a species come about from a number of different ways.

The ones I can think of off the top of my head here things developing by a number of stages, each slightly less crude than the one preceding it. It doesn't need to be perfect to be better than other species' versions of the same thing. Other methods are co-option, and things like that. Yada yada yada.

The point is, I'm just sensing a misunderstanding of what evolution says.

Thirdly, Darwin is extremely uncertain throughout his writings (see link). I'm not saying anything against science, I think it has greatly improved life in general. It's evolution I have a problem with, and what I don't consider "true science" as nothing can be proven.

http://www.antipas.org/books/evoluti...le/evo_02.html

Yes, actually. It took Charles Darwin a very hard and long time to even admit the whole natural selection theory. I attribute that to his pretty interesting relationship with religion through his life. But that doesn't mean anything as evolution doesn't begin and end with Darwin in any way.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Ok, here's what floors me about evolution. First of all, if species have been evolving over time, why don't we see species today that are in the intermediate stage of evolution? A creature halfway between a bird and a reptile? Or maybe a fish (or some other organism) still trying to evolve into some unknown new creature? If evolution is completely fact, and things don't stop evolving, there would be organisms that are still changing, developing.

Firstly, go read up on evolution.
Secondly, these points have been addressed already, in this thread to boot. Read threads before you post in them and you'll have your posts considered more.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Sword_of_Gardenia]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

I did read the previous posts, and I didn't see any of my exact points already stated. Also, I am allowed to simply state my opinion anyway, even if it has already been discussed.

[talisman]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Asking "why don't we see intermediate species?" is the same as asking "why can't we travel back in time?" The intermediate species have evolved into what they evolved into. No species today is the ancestor of any other species today, yet many species share a common ancestor which evolved into them.

The evolution of sexual reproduction is a huge mystery. It is not known HOW it evolved, yet this doesn't mean that it didn't evolve in the first place.

[meiloyn]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Okay, a species of bird with chunky beaks lives on a small island. The only two sources of food on the island are bugs living inside the bark of the trees, and the hard seeds that the trees drop.

Obviously, the birds with the chunky beaks can't get into the bark easily, but they can break the seeds open. But these seeds are becoming scarce. If a bird was suddenly born with a thinner beak, he will be unable to break open the seeds. If it hadn't been for the bugs living in the bark, he would be dead.

And the seeds are gone. This bird with the thin beak has children with the other birds. Some of them have thin beaks, some of them with chunky beaks. The ones with the chunky beaks will die out.

In time, the island will populated with birds with thin beaks.

~*~

Actually, in most cases, the bird probably wouldn't develop the thin beak. And the species will die out.

It is, in fact, partly determined by luck.

~*~

So many factors go into evolution that it is really one big giant l nxrbcpoai;en cpwnpcanatvinowngc/.

For example, when you step out under the hot sun, your skin protects you by darkening itself. Since the sun in Africa is very hot, native Africans have brown skin.

This form of evolution is an environmental factor.

~*~

Another one.

In northern canada, the animals are white. This helps camouflage them against the snow, so they won't be attacked by predators as much.

This was probably caused by some random mutation. An animal with white fur was born among those with grey fur, and predators couldn't see the animal. This gene spread to the animal's decendants. Since it was so successful, all the animals developed white fur.

[meiloyn]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

Ok, here's what floors me about evolution. First of all, if species have been evolving over time, why don't we see species today that are in the intermediate stage of evolution? A creature halfway between a bird and a reptile? Or maybe a fish (or some other organism) still trying to evolve into some unknown new creature? If evolution is completely fact, and things don't stop evolving, there would be organisms that are still changing, developing. Secondly, at what point did organisms start reproducing and to start needing another organism to reproduce another? When did we go from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? Did sexual organs just pop out of the blue? Were they completely, perfectly functional without any mistake even when they were not quite developed? And at what point was that? Thirdly, Darwin is extremely uncertain throughout his writings (see link). I'm not saying anything against science, I think it has greatly improved life in general. It's evolution I have a problem with, and what I don't consider "true science" as nothing can be proven.

http://www.antipas.org/books/evoluti...le/evo_02.html

http://www.bnl.gov/esd/reserve/images/Frog%20greenfrog.jpg

Here's what you're asking for. Its young is basically a fish with legs. In a million years, the frogs of today might evolve into another species of reptile.

Also, in the amphibian family, there is something called the salamander. It doesn't look too different from a lizard, does it? In fact, amphibians are basically the cross between fish and reptiles.

It should also be noted that most birds have legs that are scaled like reptiles. So in this way, birds are still almost reptiles.

~*~

I also question the asexual to sexual reproduction problem, too. I don't have an answer myself.

[das1ngerplayer]

Re: A big problem for Evolution?

http://www.bnl.gov/esd/reserve/image...0greenfrog.jpg

Here's what you're asking for. Its young is basically a fish with legs. In a million years, the frogs of today might evolve into another species of reptile.

Also, in the amphibian family, there is something called the salamander. It doesn't look too different from a lizard, does it? In fact, amphibians are basically the cross between fish and reptiles.

It should also be noted that most birds have legs that are scaled like reptiles. So in this way, birds are still almost reptiles.

~*~

I also question the asexual to sexual reproduction problem, too. I don't have an answer myself.

Again though, there is no proof the creatures did evolve. Science has evidence that they say proves it and believers of the Bible say they have proof. We may never know the real truth, we don't know where we go when we die, we don't know if creatures evolved. Questions that are going to end up being argued about for a very long time.

That's why I don't like talking and arguing about this. Many people just won't change their minds no matter what, I find it best to just stick to my beliefs and if someone does want informed, I'll tell them what I know.