Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[civ2]

Leoreth
Most of the "links" end up being "go search a library" or simply "bla-bla", like the one by sanabas.
I'm asking for a "chart-like" issue that would go through all steps of a limb's evolution in details, with pictures and detailed explanations of how it actually was changing GRADUALLY.
The link about the eye (on last page or something, Dorkins) is exactly the LEGO one - he just shows different combinations of already WORKING cells.
My question there would be: how did the single "eye cell" ever started functioning.
But the eye isn't my main question, cause you can say it's just based on chemical reactions etc.
I'm actually asking about working LIMBS and CRUCIAL ORGANS that could NOT "semi-work".
Wings, lungs, legs, brains, digestion system, different skin coverings...
All or most of these would result in disadvantages if "semi-developed".
I don't understand why YOU don't understand this simple question.
Also, I did NOT yet see single "all-in-one" link about why there could be gradual evolution.
Bring me one - and we have what to discuss and make conclusions.
As of now - I don't see any.
(If I actually missed a link, just remind me of it. But again, I'm talking about "click-and-read-and-get-the-whole-idea" links, not "browse-until-tomorrow" ones.)

 

[Midgard Eagle]

And to once again point this out to people, science is not arguing that God doesnt exist, or that he didnt play a role in the beginning. Science simply tries to discover what the process is and how it works. Plenty of scientists have religious faith and I think most overall dont think if they prove ____ God must not exist. I mean you have fringes of athiests who try to use scientific discovery to hammer away at religious belief, but most dont do that. The wide majority of people turning this into a science v religion throwdown are religious, and they use horrific logic to justify it.

This needs to be pointed out to people more. Those raised in a religious setting all too often look at science the way they look at their religion. Science is about as far from organized religion as it's possible to be.

And that is the only answer you will get other than:"go read a biology textbook" or "the question does not require an answer" or "God did it" or "evolution happens anyway it wants to" or "evolution is both designed and not designed all at the same time" or "the fossil records are clear but we do not have any" or "what is the alternative, God did it?" etc. etc. etc.

Oh, please.

You're posting on a video game forum populated probably mostly by teens and young adults, most of us without a day of higher education in biology, and you take our lack of knowledge as evidence evolution doesn't work.

If you are genuely interested in finding answers to the questions you ask about the ToE (as you are clearly not), I suggest asking people who know their stuff. Go to a science forum. Email biologists. Visit a museum or university.

Just for the record, I'm very often not impressed with the answers I get from the Christians here, either. Can I conclude that all two billion are as ignorant of their religion and its history and teachings as the posters here, or could it be that if I went to, say, a theologian, I might get better answers?

But you guys just 'know' it is true anyway, don`t ya?

:irony meter explodes:

 

[Leoreth]

Leoreth
Most of the "links" end up being "go search a library" or simply "bla-bla", like the one by sanabas.
I'm asking for a "chart-like" issue that would go through all steps of a limb's evolution in details, with pictures and detailed explanations of how it actually was changing GRADUALLY.

I don't know of such a link, and I don't understand why it's my duty to find one for you. The simple fact that I can't provide an internet link that's suited for your educational tastes doesn't prove me wrong.

The link about the eye (on last page or something, Dorkins) is exactly the LEGO one - he just shows different combinations of already WORKING cells.
My question there would be: how did the single "eye cell" ever started functioning.
But the eye isn't my main question, cause you can say it's just based on chemical reactions etc.

I didn't watch the whole video you were referring to, but I don't think what you describe is true. The chain usually starts with cells that became light receptive through a simple mutation. That's not far-fetched given how many biochemical processes are influenced by external energy. Our current eye is nothing but a massive improvement on that basic ability. I'm no expert on this matter so I can't tell you in which order they happened, but the ability to sense the direction of light, the intensity of light or the wavelength of light are all evolutionary advantages that helped the species that acquired them to survive (and there are species currently on Earth that have only some of these). And that's all that's necessary to know.

I'm actually asking about working LIMBS and CRUCIAL ORGANS that could NOT "semi-work".
Wings, lungs, legs, brains, digestion system, different skin coverings...
All or most of these would result in disadvantages if "semi-developed".
I don't understand why YOU don't understand this simple question.

This question has been answered several times, you just don't (want to) accept the answer: irreducible complexity is a fallacy, just because "semi-developed" organ can't carry out the function it carries out today doesn't mean it was useless.

Also, I did NOT yet see single "all-in-one" link about why there could be gradual evolution.
Bring me one - and we have what to discuss and make conclusions.
As of now - I don't see any.
(If I actually missed a link, just remind me of it. But again, I'm talking about "click-and-read-and-get-the-whole-idea" links, not "browse-until-tomorrow" ones.)

I won't let myself be pushed into the defense by you any further. The majority of natural scientists supports the theory of evolution, and that's not because scientists are part of a secret conspiracy that hates religion. You support a something that's a fringe theory at best, so the burden of proof is on you. Where's your all-in-one link? Oh, I forgot, you're just asking questions.

It's as if I would fall into a physics thread and say: "the theory of relativity can't be, how could it be that you can't become faster than light, I just have to accelerate my car to 100 mph and turn its flash lights on, and the light would move at c+100 mph. To prove me wrong, show me a link that is capable of explaining the whole theory of relativity to a pre-schooler or else I'VE WON".

 

[civ2]

You know what?
I myself did a bit of research (and proved you being lazy bums for not spending 5 minutes to provide a link I was asking for).
Basically, the main problem that is still there, is that all boils down to "probably this happened this way and this that way".
That's exactly the difference between KNOWING and ASSUMING.
Evolution is based on ASSUMPTIONS, not KNOWLEDGE.
And that's why I consider people that BELIEVE in it to the point of "fanatically" defending it as "FACTS" (rather than a THEORY, which it IS - UNPROVED) - "fanatics of the science religion".
And you can argue that you aren't until the Sun implodes - I don't care; your actions (posts in this case) speak for themselves.
Again, the problem lies in the gradual development:
1. Evolution is considered a FACT, rather than THEORY.
2. Facts must be TRUE.
3. There can be only one TRUTH.
4. If evolution is TRUE, then all other versions are NOT.
5. Which includes the CREATION.
6. Therefore Bible is WRONG.
7. Therefore there's no G-d.
It all started as 1. - and ended up as 7.
Whatever.
You can bring the horse to the river, but you can't make it drink...
Unless it grows gills and fins and goes for a swim...

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Your flagrant misunderstanding of what the word theory means in a scientific context shows that you simply don't care to even try and understand this, I honestly can't imagine why anyone is still humoring this thread.

 

[Ajidica]

This might be useful:

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.

Hypothesis: A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

Theory: A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Law: A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

 

[emzie]

You know what?
I myself did a bit of research (and proved you being lazy bums for not spending 5 minutes to provide a link I was asking for).
Basically, the main problem that is still there, is that all boils down to "probably this happened this way and this that way".
That's exactly the difference between KNOWING and ASSUMING.
Evolution is based on ASSUMPTIONS, not KNOWLEDGE.
And that's why I consider people that BELIEVE in it to the point of "fanatically" defending it as "FACTS" (rather than a THEORY, which it IS - UNPROVED) - "fanatics of the science religion".
And you can argue that you aren't until the Sun implodes - I don't care; your actions (posts in this case) speak for themselves.
Again, the problem lies in the gradual development:
1. Evolution is considered a FACT, rather than THEORY.
2. Facts must be TRUE.
3. There can be only one TRUTH.
4. If evolution is TRUE, then all other versions are NOT.
5. Which includes the CREATION.
6. Therefore Bible is WRONG.
7. Therefore there's no G-d.
It all started as 1. - and ended up as 7.
Whatever.
You can bring the horse to the river, but you can't make it drink...
Unless it grows gills and fins and goes for a swim...

I think you're confused as to what evidence is used to support evolution. Speculation about how birds evolved isn't evolutionary theory bedrock. Exactly how a theropod turns into a bird cannot be proven. What can be proven is that birds are modified reptiles: common descent is proven through molecular genetics, though fossils are nice for illustrative purposes. How this happened becomes speculation (see my post about birds running up inclines), but that speculation is post hoc ie: we know X is true, how X is true cannot be known without time travel.

While I find such speculation fascinating, it's completely irrelevant to proving evolution.

edit: and in a strict sense about PROVEN and THEORY, nothing other than math can be truly proven -- there's no true proof of evolution just as there's no true proof that things fall to the ground (let alone a proof for gravity!)

 

[sophie]

You know what?
I myself did a bit of research (and proved you being lazy bums for not spending 5 minutes to provide a link I was asking for).
Basically, the main problem that is still there, is that all boils down to "probably this happened this way and this that way".
That's exactly the difference between KNOWING and ASSUMING.
Evolution is based on ASSUMPTIONS, not KNOWLEDGE.

No, it actually has happened. Evolution HAS been observed, you know.

 

[Arakhor]

1. Evolution is considered a FACT, rather than THEORY.
2. Facts must be TRUE.
3. There can be only one TRUTH.
4. If evolution is TRUE, then all other versions are NOT.
5. Which includes the CREATION.
6. Therefore Bible is WRONG.
7. Therefore there's no G-d.

1. That's a wilful misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is.
2. Yes.
3. Not necessarily.
4. See 3.
5. Evolution does not concern itself with abiogenesis, stellar formations and so on.
6. Quite possibly, yes, but that hardly dims its message.
7. Also quite possible, but I choose to believe otherwise, despite people insisting on false dichotomies, to the detriment of both religion and science.

 

[sanabas]

You know what?
I myself did a bit of research (and proved you being lazy bums for not spending 5 minutes to provide a link I was asking for).
Basically, the main problem that is still there, is that all boils down to "probably this happened this way and this that way".
That's exactly the difference between KNOWING and ASSUMING.
Evolution is based on ASSUMPTIONS, not KNOWLEDGE.
And that's why I consider people that BELIEVE in it to the point of "fanatically" defending it as "FACTS" (rather than a THEORY, which it IS - UNPROVED) - "fanatics of the science religion".
And you can argue that you aren't until the Sun implodes - I don't care; your actions (posts in this case) speak for themselves.
Again, the problem lies in the gradual development:
1. Evolution is considered a FACT, rather than THEORY.
2. Facts must be TRUE.
3. There can be only one TRUTH.
4. If evolution is TRUE, then all other versions are NOT.
5. Which includes the CREATION.
6. Therefore Bible is WRONG.
7. Therefore there's no G-d.
It all started as 1. - and ended up as 7.
Whatever.
You can bring the horse to the river, but you can't make it drink...
Unless it grows gills and fins and goes for a swim...

Are you a direct descendent of Adam and/or Noah? If so, I want a link showing every generation, from you to your father to his father to his father and so on until we reach Adam or Noah. If you fail to provide one, then Adam & Noah never existed.

Or how about getting hold of some highly radioactive material. When you get sick, and the doctor tells you it's radiation poisoning, explain that's crap, unless he can give you a detailed description of exactly which atom decayed when, he has no proof that radioactive decay happens at all.

I gave you one perfectly good link to click on, another example you can simply type into wiki, and 3 examples of fish that typing into google or wiki will give you details of their lungs, which 'semi-work' when compared to ours. Why ask questions if you just want to remain wilfully ignorant and ignore the answers you get?

 

[warpus]

I'm actually asking about working LIMBS and CRUCIAL ORGANS that could NOT "semi-work".

Semi-wings can be very beneficial. Have you heard of the "flying" squirrel?

 

[Leoreth]

You know what?
I myself did a bit of research (and proved you being lazy bums for not spending 5 minutes to provide a link I was asking for).

If you're capable of doing your own research, why complain about pointers where to start, then? And if you want to consider me lazy because I'm not willing to research the internet for some guy on some forum, then so be it.

Basically, the main problem that is still there, is that all boils down to "probably this happened this way and this that way".

You need to focus on what points are argued. You said it's impossible that certain developments have happened, I provided examples on how it was possible, therefore refuting your argument. More wasn't necessary to do that, so I didn't.

That's exactly the difference between KNOWING and ASSUMING.
Evolution is based on ASSUMPTIONS, not KNOWLEDGE.
And that's why I consider people that BELIEVE in it to the point of "fanatically" defending it as "FACTS" (rather than a THEORY, which it IS - UNPROVED) - "fanatics of the science religion".

Can you provide a non-intuitional definition of what either of this words mean? You use them with quite a certainty, but there's not much substance behind it.

Scientists can, as the posters above have shown.

All that makes science look like a fanatical religion to you is the fact that you can't think in terms of anything else.

And you can argue that you aren't until the Sun implodes - I don't care; your actions (posts in this case) speak for themselves.
Again, the problem lies in the gradual development:
1. Evolution is considered a FACT, rather than THEORY.
2. Facts must be TRUE.
3. There can be only one TRUTH.
4. If evolution is TRUE, then all other versions are NOT.
5. Which includes the CREATION.
6. Therefore Bible is WRONG.
7. Therefore there's no G-d.
It all started as 1. - and ended up as 7.

Is the Bible wrong on how the current species originated? In my opinion, yes. Does that automatically make all the rest of the Bible wrong? No (where's the logic behind that, anyway?). Also, God could even exist when ALL of the Bible was wrong.

Evolution doesn't follow that God doesn't exist, but it shows that you think so, because your vigour here only comes from (unjustified) fear of "losing" your religion.

Whatever.
You can bring the horse to the river, but you can't make it drink...
Unless it grows gills and fins and goes for a swim...

Which is exactly why I'll stop arguing with you here (mark that as a "win" in your imaginary dream world, if you like). Just keep out of the matter what is being taught in science classes, you've obviously disqualified yourself from doing so.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

6. Therefore Bible is WRONG.
7. Therefore there's no God.

I know some Muslims and some members of various other religions who like to have a word with you

 

[Midgard Eagle]

1. Evolution is considered a FACT, rather than THEORY.
2. Facts must be TRUE.
3. There can be only one TRUTH.
4. If evolution is TRUE, then all other versions are NOT.
5. Which includes the CREATION.
6. Therefore Bible is WRONG.
7. Therefore there's no G-d.

You've got 1-6 down (even though, as has been pointed out to you, you've misunderstood what a scientific theory is), but 7 does not follow from 6.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Also, God is not a banned word, I don't understand why you typed it as G-d?

 

[Midgard Eagle]

Some Christian groups, and I don't know how many Jews (nearly all of them?), have rules against taking their Lord's name in vain. Some people hold the attitude that since no one really knows what this means, no one should ever speak God's name, ever. Just to really be on the safe side, they don't write his name either.

 

[Leoreth]

He seems to be Jewish.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It's actually more of a religious Jewish then a Christian thing.

 

[kramerfan86]

Oh sweet baby jesus its like he doesnt actually read anyone's posts. I mean, do I REALLY need to explain yet again scientists dont proclaim evolution to mean there is no God? I mean really?

And its laughable religious people go off and claim evolution is complete faith because it doesnt have every single detail and piece of evidence. Never mind the fact he has TONS of evidence, it doesnt have 100% evidence, therefore its just silly faith. No, faith is when you have absolutely no real evidence or next to none and choose to believe, when you have 90-95% of the evidence and choose to believe you are just being practical. I swear, you people are the jurors who let murderers off because the prosecutor didnt bring you a recording of the crime, 5 different samples of his DNA at the scene, and a gun with his prints on it that matches ballistics.

 

[PeteAtoms]

And that's why I consider people that BELIEVE in it to the point of "fanatically" defending it as "FACTS" (rather than a THEORY, which it IS - UNPROVED)

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory?

Is gravity proven to happen?
Are atoms a conspiracy?
How about cells or germs?
How's about plate tectonics?