|
Pages: 1 2 Next
-- Posted by Anonymous at 8:54 am on Oct. 19, 2008
Do you recognize the arguments against evolution? We all know the arguments against creationism but what about problems concerning evolution? Now, the point of this thread is to not shoot down creationism. Stay on topic. Do you have the answers or strong opinions to these problems about evolution? And yes, we don't really have the answers for creationism. But thats a whole other topic. But before I get to the questions/statement, anyone ever read Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box?" Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" 1) Evolution does not say how the universe came about. 2) How could living creatures come from non-life? 3) How could new genetic information arise? 4) Where is the proof that apes turned into humans? Now, these questions/statement came from a site. Furthermore, evolutionism is being criticized by the scientific community as time goes on. So whats the deal?
-- Posted by HeartofJuyoMk2 at 8:59 am on Oct. 19, 2008
1) evolution isnt about the formation of the universe. ife does not need to be created right when the universe began.
2)There was a scienntific experiment concerning the early atmosphere which produced a blob with life characteristics. I could provide a link to the study, but fact is, the idea that God simply created life is the same concept.
3)Mutations and variations during sexual intercourse.
4)Fossils showing the metamorphosis over time. Our stunning similarity to apes in behavior and form.
-- Posted by marshmellowman at 9:09 am on Oct. 19, 2008
1) Evolution does not say how the universe came about.
What's even the point of this statement, it bears no relevance. Evolution isn't about, and has never been concerned with, where life started from, just how the creatures developed from primitive organisms to more advanced ones, as well as generally how they adapt to a change in their surroundings. 2) How could living creatures come from non-life?
This is stupid. At least it's phrased idiotically. It makes it sound like a fish grew from a rock, it's not like that at all. Billions of years ago the conditions were right, (though we don't exactly know how), current scientists believe small proteins were formed and from this eventually single celled organisms were formed. These developed and evolved, as well as separating and forming different organisms that evolved separately giving rise to new species, and so on and so forth. 3) How could new genetic information arise?
Anyone with a basic Biology understanding could easily answer this. Mutations introduce new genetic material, independent assortment, etc. There are plenty of ways, and I won't bother to go into detail because anyone that cares can do it themselves. 4) Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?
They didn't, anyone that argues this point is an idiot. We share a common ancestor, the proof is in our DNA being genetically similar to theirs by something like 80%. Do a genetic fingerprint on it and see for yourself.
What exactly is the 'problem' with evolution? I really fail to see who these 'scientists' are that challenge evolution more and more. That's new to me. If you think any of the questions you posed are strong arguments, or arguments at all, you need to read some better materials, or perhaps by authors that actually know what they hell they are talking about rather than some self-absorbed moron.
-- Posted by HeartofJuyoMk2 at 9:15 am on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from marshmellowman at 12:09 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
 1) Evolution does not say how the universe came about.
What's even the point of this statement, it bears no relevance. Evolution isn't about, and has never been concerned with, where life started from, just how the creatures developed from primitive organisms to more advanced ones, as well as generally how they adapt to a change in their surroundings. 2) How could living creatures come from non-life?
This is stupid. At least it's phrased idiotically. It makes it sound like a fish grew from a rock, it's not like that at all. Billions of years ago the conditions were right, (though we don't exactly know how), current scientists believe small proteins were formed and from this eventually single celled organisms were formed. These developed and evolved, as well as separating and forming different organisms that evolved separately giving rise to new species, and so on and so forth. 3) How could new genetic information arise?
Anyone with a basic Biology understanding could easily answer this. Mutations introduce new genetic material, independent assortment, etc. There are plenty of ways, and I won't bother to go into detail because anyone that cares can do it themselves. 4) Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?
They didn't, anyone that argues this point is an idiot. We share a common ancestor, the proof is in our DNA being genetically similar to theirs by something like 80%. Do a genetic fingerprint on it and see for yourself.
What exactly is the 'problem' with evolution? I really fail to see who these 'scientists' are that challenge evolution more and more. That's new to me. If you think any of the questions you posed are strong arguments, or arguments at all, you need to read some better materials, or perhaps by authors that actually know what they hell they are talking about rather than some self-absorbed moron.
Praise it brother!
-- Posted by BleedingSteelWings at 9:25 am on Oct. 19, 2008
I have a video here that could explain some of this. It's actually part of a series of videos that are made by CDK007 on the subject. I must say, it's pretty compelling. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Again, I say it is very compelling. It's a great explanation of the possiblities.
-- Posted by ElephantStone at 12:15 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Part of my degree in Archaeology is largely based on Evolution 1. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. 2. Thebirth of life came from chemical reactions in the sea. (It had something to do with electricity) 3. Mutations make new genetics. There are many 'mutations' in human genes - that is why asian, south american, european, etc. people look so different. Secondly evolution is spontaneous. Cauliflower is a mutated cabbage that is only kept alive by humans - the flowers dont open to be pollinated. 4. The proof is in DNA. And for the record humans didnt come from apes. We share a common ancestor many miliions of years ago, and apes are a completely different line to us.
-- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 12:55 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
1) Evolution does not say how the universe came about.
Anybody who thinks this is a valid question honestly should not be voicing opinions about evolution. Ever. Especially in an "intellectual" forum.
-- Posted by Anonymous at 1:22 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 3:55 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
1) Evolution does not say how the universe came about.
Anybody who thinks this is a valid question honestly should not be voicing opinions about evolution. Ever. Especially in an "intellectual" forum.
It wasn't my opinon. I just got the question from another site looking for opinons. 
-- Posted by Bearsy at 2:22 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Actually guys, humans ARE apes... I don't think any of you know what you're talking about, especially OP.
-- Posted by marshmellowman at 2:44 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 10:22 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Actually guys, humans ARE apes... I don't think any of you know what you're talking about, especially OP.
That is so laughable coming from you. Humans may be apes, but not like the original website meant (as in gorillas and chimpanzees). An excerpt for the term ape: " In less scientific language, it has various meanings, although it often (but not always) excludes humans."
-- Posted by Bearsy at 2:57 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Nice save, you'll never be able to admit you've made a mistake. What you meant is that humans and MONKEYS share a common ancestor.
-- Posted by allsmiles at 3:02 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
1) Evolution does not say how the universe came about. Evolution is not, and was never, a theory of the birth of the universe/ 2) How could living creatures come from non-life? The most plausible theory is that it formed from the forging of proteins (which are compounds like any other) within protective clay shells deep within the oceans at ideal temperatures for the catalyst for reaction to form. 3) How could new genetic information arise? Mutation. Born of the uncertainty principle, or perhaps more realisticly from outside sources tainting the division of cells. 4) Where is the proof that apes turned into humans? Humans are apes. But if you mean, from bonobos or chimpanzees or whatever it is we share common ancestry with, the proof is in archaeology/palaeontology, and the countless numbers of remains showing different stages of evolution.
-- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 3:03 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from jamesish at 4:22 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 3:55 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
1) Evolution does not say how the universe came about.
Anybody who thinks this is a valid question honestly should not be voicing opinions about evolution. Ever. Especially in an "intellectual" forum.
It wasn't my opinon. I just got the question from another site looking for opinons.
Here's something, then. Most people, on thinking they have found a way to question evolution, are actually questioning the validity of the science education they were given. You gave the ignorance-fueled questions some illusion of validity when you referred to "problems" of evolution. People not knowing that abiogenesis is distinct from evolution isn't evolution's problem. People not understanding the idea behind protobionts isn't a problem in evolution. People not knowing how mutations work isn't a problem in evolution.
-- Posted by ElephantStone at 3:10 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 11:03 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from jamesish at 4:22 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 3:55 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
1) Evolution does not say how the universe came about.
Anybody who thinks this is a valid question honestly should not be voicing opinions about evolution. Ever. Especially in an "intellectual" forum.
It wasn't my opinon. I just got the question from another site looking for opinons.
Here's something, then. Most people, on thinking they have found a way to question evolution, are actually questioning the validity of the science education they were given. You gave the ignorance-fueled questions some illusion of validity when you referred to "problems" of evolution. People not knowing that abiogenesis is distinct from evolution isn't evolution's problem. People not understanding the idea behind protobionts isn't a problem in evolution. People not knowing how mutations work isn't a problem in evolution.
i think we've gone off topic now. We've established 3 times that evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. This is an interesting topic, lets not see it de-railed.
-- Posted by ElephantStone at 3:12 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:02 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
4) Where is the proof that apes turned into humans? Humans are apes.
Apes have nothing to do with humans. They shared a common ancestor with us and split in their own direction.
-- Posted by Bearsy at 3:13 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 3:12 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:02 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
4) Where is the proof that apes turned into humans? Humans are apes.
Apes have nothing to do with humans. They shared a common ancestor with us and split in their own direction.
MORE LIES
-- Posted by allsmiles at 3:15 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 11:12 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:02 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
4) Where is the proof that apes turned into humans? Humans are apes.
Apes have nothing to do with humans. They shared a common ancestor with us and split in their own direction.
Really?
Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. Under the current classification system there are two families of hominoids:*the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 13 species of gibbons, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
-- Posted by Bearsy at 3:16 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Even the childlover backs me up. [As a certified LiveWire Intellectual you are indubitably capable of composing a more verbose post!]
-- Posted by ElephantStone at 3:18 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Another note about evolution. It is not as many people see it - a search for perfection, a ladder, going from one step to the next. Evolution is not like a ladder, it is like a bush, with lots of dead ends. WRONG:  Right:  As far as Im aware the theory of evolution is still strong, just the way it works is being disputed.
-- Posted by ElephantStone at 3:19 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:15 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 11:12 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:02 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
4) Where is the proof that apes turned into humans? Humans are apes.
Apes have nothing to do with humans. They shared a common ancestor with us and split in their own direction.
Really?
Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. Under the current classification system there are two families of hominoids:*the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 13 species of gibbons, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
Well that cant be right. Thats not what Ive read and been taught.
-- Posted by marshmellowman at 3:24 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
I thought that people would realise the utter crap in this topic after my points have been reiterated by other people plenty of times, yet this is still going. As a scientific term, apes are not just one animal, but a super-family containing plenty of species, which do include humans. However in most non-scientific terms apes are almost always used in the case where humans are excluded from this. Bearsy, stop arguing semantics please, it makes no difference to the original content.
-- Posted by Bearsy at 3:25 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
ElephantStone why the fux were there a bunch of biblical names by your skulls EDIT: Well you removed the picture now so forget it.
-- Posted by allsmiles at 3:26 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 11:19 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:15 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 11:12 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:02 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
4) Where is the proof that apes turned into humans? Humans are apes.
Apes have nothing to do with humans. They shared a common ancestor with us and split in their own direction.
Really?
Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. Under the current classification system there are two families of hominoids:*the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 13 species of gibbons, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
Well that cant be right. Thats not what Ive read and been taught.
You've read and been taught wrong then. This is not really up for discussion, it's a certified, scientific label.
-- Posted by ElephantStone at 3:30 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 11:25 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
ElephantStone why the fux were there a bunch of biblical names by your skulls EDIT: Well you removed the picture now so forget it.
I just saw it was the right diagram and copied it and then noticed that it was being used as a joke against creationism. So i got the right one and now its fucked up :(
-- Posted by ElephantStone at 2:26 am on Oct. 20, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:26 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 11:19 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:15 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 11:12 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:02 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
4) Where is the proof that apes turned into humans? Humans are apes.
Apes have nothing to do with humans. They shared a common ancestor with us and split in their own direction.
Really?
Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. Under the current classification system there are two families of hominoids:*the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 13 species of gibbons, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
Well that cant be right. Thats not what Ive read and been taught.
You've read and been taught wrong then. This is not really up for discussion, it's a certified, scientific label.
I think this says enough:
Humans cannot be descended from the apes because, in some ways, they are apes themselves. Really we should ask whether humans descended from 'an' ape. Naturally people are not descended from a present-day ape, any more than we are descended from our cousins. But palaeontology and all the disciplines of the biological sciences have taught us that humans and apes have common ancestors several million years ago.
Thomas, H. (2006) The first humans: the search for our origins Im going to stick with this view and the many thousand other professors and doctors that do so.
-- Posted by allsmiles at 4:10 am on Oct. 20, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 10:26 am on Oct. 20, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:26 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 11:19 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:15 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 11:12 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:02 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
4) Where is the proof that apes turned into humans? Humans are apes.
Apes have nothing to do with humans. They shared a common ancestor with us and split in their own direction.
Really?
Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. Under the current classification system there are two families of hominoids:*the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 13 species of gibbons, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
Well that cant be right. Thats not what Ive read and been taught.
You've read and been taught wrong then. This is not really up for discussion, it's a certified, scientific label.
I think this says enough:
Humans cannot be descended from the apes because, in some ways, they are apes themselves. Really we should ask whether humans descended from 'an' ape. Naturally people are not descended from a present-day ape, any more than we are descended from our cousins. But palaeontology and all the disciplines of the biological sciences have taught us that humans and apes have common ancestors several million years ago.
Thomas, H. (2006) The first humans: the search for our origins Im going to stick with this view and the many thousand other professors and doctors that do so.
I think this says enough.
-- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 4:16 am on Oct. 20, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 6:10 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
i think we've gone off topic now. We've established 3 times that evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. This is an interesting topic, lets not see it de-railed.
You do, of course, understand that given that the question about the universe's origin is in the original post that if every subsequent post explained why that question was stupid and offered nothing else to the topic, the topic would at no point be "de-railed" because every single response would have been on-topic, right? Of course you do. Intellectual forum, and all that.
-- Posted by Anonymous at 4:28 am on Oct. 20, 2008
Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 7:16 am on Oct. 20, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 6:10 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
i think we've gone off topic now. We've established 3 times that evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. This is an interesting topic, lets not see it de-railed.
You do, of course, understand that given that the question about the universe's origin is in the original post that if every subsequent post explained why that question was stupid and offered nothing else to the topic, the topic would at no point be "de-railed" because every single response would have been on-topic, right? Of course you do. Intellectual forum, and all that.
Have you ever read or heard about Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box?
-- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 4:56 am on Oct. 20, 2008
Quote: from jamesish at 7:28 am on Oct. 20, 2008
Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 7:16 am on Oct. 20, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 6:10 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
i think we've gone off topic now. We've established 3 times that evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. This is an interesting topic, lets not see it de-railed.
You do, of course, understand that given that the question about the universe's origin is in the original post that if every subsequent post explained why that question was stupid and offered nothing else to the topic, the topic would at no point be "de-railed" because every single response would have been on-topic, right? Of course you do. Intellectual forum, and all that.
Have you ever read or heard about Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box?
I haven't read it, but I know of it. I'm also aware of "irreducible complexity", or the argument of "well gosh, I dunno how this coulda happened. Let's try not to figure it out, let's just chalk it up to Jesus and study something else."
-- Posted by ElephantStone at 6:02 am on Oct. 20, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 12:10 pm on Oct. 20, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 10:26 am on Oct. 20, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:26 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 11:19 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:15 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from ElephantStone at 11:12 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
Quote: from allsmiles at 11:02 pm on Oct. 19, 2008
4) Where is the proof that apes turned into humans? Humans are apes.
Apes have nothing to do with humans. They shared a common ancestor with us and split in their own direction.
Really?
Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. Under the current classification system there are two families of hominoids:*the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 13 species of gibbons, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
Well that cant be right. Thats not what Ive read and been taught.
You've read and been taught wrong then. This is not really up for discussion, it's a certified, scientific label.
I think this says enough:
Humans cannot be descended from the apes because, in some ways, they are apes themselves. Really we should ask whether humans descended from 'an' ape. Naturally people are not descended from a present-day ape, any more than we are descended from our cousins. But palaeontology and all the disciplines of the biological sciences have taught us that humans and apes have common ancestors several million years ago.
Thomas, H. (2006) The first humans: the search for our origins Im going to stick with this view and the many thousand other professors and doctors that do so.
I think this says enough.
So Im right then? Modern humans are not descended from apes.
Pages: 1 2 Next
|