The flaws of evolution

[highstreet]

Being noble or living with nobles was no guarantee with the plague. Doctors back then were ill equiped to treat these epedemics. How many times do we read in history book about so and so noble having dying from the plague? I've come across it pretty often.

And richies have their own problems too. Have you ever heard of the Kennedys?

 

[WillJ]

After a while I just starting skimming the thread, so I hope I didn't miss anything relating to what I'm going to say.

Originally posted by Sir John
and if it was to get this mutation the chance of carrying iot one would diminish more since two of them would have to get it at the same time... and not just two but a male and a female..

No. Only one person has to have it, if it's a dominant trait. In fact, if it's a bad thing, it's likely a recessive trait, which two people have to have, giving an advantage to the good traits. If I'm not mistaken.

Originally posted by Sir John
No this is the good argument.. Yes we have had some billion years but see on the facts.. it started out as a ONE CELLED organism into something so complex that it hardly can evolve...

Just how can you conclude that that is impossible or even unlikely? Yes, it does seem amazing that a single-cellular organism can eventually turn into humans, but so what? Doesn't it seem amazing that light takes millions and millions of years to go from one star to another? I mean, you can't even comprehend that distance. So do you think it's untrue?

Originally posted by Sir John
And when have we in our history seen a evoultion as u said?

Well, we've seen evolution many times, with moths (as someone else said), dog and cat breeds, lab rats (I think), some other stuff, and of course bacteria. I don't know of any sources that I can show you right now, though. The thing is, I'm not 100% sure whether or not we've seen speciation first hand, but I'd be surprised if it hasn't been documented with single-cellular organisms.

Originally posted by bobgote
I follow the theory of evolution as far as micro-evolution. That is that within a species, certain differences can evolve so that the creature adapts better to its environment. This would include such things as skin colouring/camouflage, prioritising of senses resulting in a tendency for certain senses to evolve better (such as smell/hearing for a dog), amounts of body hair and lengths of tails/legs etc. Such things happen over a long period of time and explain the differences of different types of animals in a certain species ie different breeds of dogs. As far as this goes, evolution seems reasonable.

Where I draw the line is macro-evolution, ie that one species can evolve into another. I think it's entirely unrealistic, and as far as I know, goes against our current scientific knowledge. Lizards (as used in one example) can interbreed, but would never evolve into snakes. If two animals are too diverse, they cannot breed or their offspring is sterile.

I think the best example of evolution is the theory itself. It manages to modify and re-invent itself whenever its proved wrong or new science is discovered.

Why do you draw the line at macro-evolution? You accept a species gradually and slightly changing, so picture that slightly different thing continuing to evolve. And evolve. And evolve. Then somewhere along the line those different organisms (but still the same species) are seperated, maybe by an island breaking off from the main continent. This island changes gradually in characteristics from the main continent, so the two groups of the same species evolve differently. Can't you picture these two groups becoming so different that one eventually can't breed with the other?

About the skin thing: How could it not be in some way genetic? If a black person has a kid with another black person, go ahead and take a wild guess as to what color skin that kid will have. I think what was meant by the study was that races have very little genetic difference (and therefore there really isn't race, beyond skin color), but it's still genetic. Or am I totally missing the point?

 

[Ado]

Bobgote, I think I see where you and I are differing. It comes down to the definition of a species. You say that rattlesnakes and taipans are the same "snake" species but they are different species, but would be grouped together probably in a "family" or "order", don't have a biology book handy (which is in itself a problem, as I'm in one of the Biology buidlings of the ANU!!).

Similarly in my rather crude example of the horse/donkey progression, we're talking about different species, as the group of horses developed more and more like donkeys we'd eventually get to the point where a new species has evolved from the old. That's the point where generations of micro-evolution has become a case of macro-evolution.

My example wasn't going to be as bold as move from a horse to a snake-like creature, but in theory and given a very, very long time then there would be a possibility than a mammal "snake" could evolve - unlikely granted. Remember too that evolution isn't working to a particular goal, it's not a case of "Heck, these horses would do a damn sight better if they were snakes" and then making the genetic changes to produce a snake, it just "rewards" those individuals with a better chance of surviving by being more likely to pass on their genes with the changes in the genotype (genetic make-up) that produce the changes in the phenotype (actual physical appearance). If that river bank dried up, then I would imagine the evolutionary trend would not continue to something like a snake but maintain or move toward something that could survive well in the new environment.

In Darwin's Origin, an example is used where he could see how a bear might evolve over time into something very much like a whale. These paragraphs are used often by a creationist I know to throw light on Darwin the madman - and sure, if he was saying it's going to happen in a generation or two then I'd agree. But the full passage goes deeper and suggests slight changes to behaviour that might lead to evolutionary pressure which in turn promotes more aquatic behaviour and so-on, until you have something that lives permanently in the water, where the evolutionary trend in very much for sleek fish-like bodies.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by WillJ

Why do you draw the line at macro-evolution? You accept a species gradually and slightly changing, so picture that slightly different thing continuing to evolve. And evolve. And evolve. Then somewhere along the line those different organisms (but still the same species) are seperated, maybe by an island breaking off from the main continent. This island changes gradually in characteristics from the main continent, so the two groups of the same species evolve differently. Can't you picture these two groups becoming so different that one eventually can't breed with the other?

for argument's sake, maybe they can't breed with the other, but they don't change types of animal.

About the skin thing: How could it not be in some way genetic? If a black person has a kid with another black person, go ahead and take a wild guess as to what color skin that kid will have. I think what was meant by the study was that races have very little genetic difference (and therefore there really isn't race, beyond skin color), but it's still genetic. Or am I totally missing the point?

missing the point. never said it wasn't genetic. it's just it does alter over time through the generations and can change skin colour.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Ado
Bobgote, I think I see where you and I are differing. It comes down to the definition of a species. You say that rattlesnakes and taipans are the same "snake" species but they are different species, but would be grouped together probably in a "family" or "order", don't have a biology book handy (which is in itself a problem, as I'm in one of the Biology buidlings of the ANU!!).

yep, that's what i meant. i didn't know the terms and stuff. what do you do at ANU?

My example wasn't going to be as bold as move from a horse to a snake-like creature, but in theory and given a very, very long time then there would be a possibility than a mammal "snake" could evolve - unlikely granted. Remember too that evolution isn't working to a particular goal, it's not a case of "Heck, these horses would do a damn sight better if they were snakes" and then making the genetic changes to produce a snake, it just "rewards" those individuals with a better chance of surviving by being more likely to pass on their genes with the changes in the genotype (genetic make-up) that produce the changes in the phenotype (actual physical appearance). If that river bank dried up, then I would imagine the evolutionary trend would not continue to something like a snake but maintain or move toward something that could survive well in the new environment.

In Darwin's Origin, an example is used where he could see how a bear might evolve over time into something very much like a whale. These paragraphs are used often by a creationist I know to throw light on Darwin the madman - and sure, if he was saying it's going to happen in a generation or two then I'd agree. But the full passage goes deeper and suggests slight changes to behaviour that might lead to evolutionary pressure which in turn promotes more aquatic behaviour and so-on, until you have something that lives permanently in the water, where the evolutionary trend in very much for sleek fish-like bodies.

hmm. i don't think anything like that could ever happen, don't believe it to be so, but still i'm interested. If you could find that example, i'd be interested in reading it.

 

[Ado]

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

Go to Chapter 6 and do a search for "whale", you should end up with the right passage.

Nor do I believe it would actually happen, and nor I imagine did Darwin in truth, however the process involved of selection is more the point he was trying to make. You can see why it's such an easy target for opponents, they tend to focus on the bear-to-whale aspect instead of the processes. I think he was forced in later editions to either re-write or even scrap this (and other) passage.

I'm actually an IT officer, work in the School of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology and the new Medical School. Looking to study part-time next year which will be cool!

 

[Gingerbread Man]

First of all, I never claim to be right. I'm only human, not a scientist or anything.

Second, I dont completely cast off evolution. A donkey and a horse are similar. They may not be able to breed with each other (Though it may be possible, its not the point) but they had similar, if same origins. Maybe a horse is a fast running donkey or something, I'm no expert.

But what I find unbelievable is a horse becoming a snake, a dog becoming a cat. I dont see how a plant could turn into an animal, or an animal into a plant. With my understanding of the universe, I find it impossible.

I didn't present my ideas as right, or scientifically sound, just wanted to see what you people said about them.

The biggest thing that frustrates me at the moment is that evolutionists think they know for sure. They say "This is the theory, it will never fall". Then you say "apart from some minor problems", but you never seem to admit what these problems are. Maybe they think there are none, because they never speak of them.

The theory of light changed many times over it's 2000 or so year history. They didn't get it right the first time, nor the second. Many times they were close, but discarded the idea for something else. There were many complete changes to the theory of light, and how it travelled.

Yet evolutionist scientists are certain in themselves that they are right, we DID evolve, theres NO other way. They say only minor issues that are being solved exist, and believe that ToE is infallable, unsinkable like the Titanic. They don't even think once that they might be wrong. And throughout human history, that is one of the biggest mistakes that can ever be made.

Am I right? Wrong? I think your answer will be swift to cast me aside, but go ahead. For one, I see so many people who do this stuff for a job in this thread, and I am young and dumb, so I really cant pull any big killer arguments. But there are people who have much evidence, logic, and proof against ToE. Some even do that for a job. There are magazines and publications on this. Though I have a feeling that the scientific community casts them away without thought.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by highstreet
Being noble or living with nobles was no guarantee with the plague. Doctors back then were ill equiped to treat these epedemics. How many times do we read in history book about so and so noble having dying from the plague? I've come across it pretty often.

And richies have their own problems too. Have you ever heard of the Kennedys?

I'm not saying rich people didn't die of plagues, but they were less likely to. At the time there were thousands of rich people. But with better sanitation they were more likely to survive. Plus at the time there wasn't any social support so if you couldn't support your kids they would die.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man
First of all, I never claim to be right.

Second, I dont completely cast off evolution. A donkey and a horse are similar. They may not be able to breed with each other (Though it may be possible, its not the point) but they had similar, if same origins. Maybe a horse is a fast running donkey or something, I'm no expert.

Well, horses and donkeys can interbreed, just their off-spring will be sterile (I think just recently some scientists managed to clone a mule).

But what I find unbelievable is a horse becoming a snake, a dog becoming a cat. I dont see how a plant could turn into an animal, or an animal into a plant. With my understanding of the universe, I find it impossible.

Evolution doesn't say a horse will become a snake or a dog, cat. It does say though that an aipe-like creature can turn into a human-like creature, or that an amphibian, when slowly stripped of a wet enviroment, will develop reptilian-like traits.

The biggest thing that frustrates me at the moment is that evolutionists think they know for sure. They say "This is the theory, it will never fall". Then you say "apart from some minor problems", but you never seem to admit what these problems are. Maybe they think there are none, because they never speak of them.

Back at the end of the 19th century phisicists said they knew just about everything that was to be known about Physics, appart from some "minor" problems. This was the unexplainable radiation that completely black bodies emmited. This eventually developed into the radically different 20th century physics. (If nihilistic or col have more on this, please post it).

Am I right? Wrong? I think your answer will be swift to cast me aside, but go ahead. For one, I see so many people who do this stuff for a job in this thread, and I am young and dumb, so I really cant pull any big killer arguments. But there are people who have much evidence, logic, and proof against ToE. Some even do that for a job. There are magazines and publications on this. Though I have a feeling that the scientific community casts them away without thought.

The problem with creationists and ToE skeptics is that they bring out very un-scientific mithological or mistical arguments. The magazines or publications are dumb to funny or tragicomical.

 

[Sir John]

I guess im beaten down at most of arguments but still, there isnt any evidence of the theory of evoulution.. Im not saying its wrong, but u cant proove it.. and anyways even if some species do mutate its a whole other thing to become to a completly new species... And a very important thing... When they mutate they will perhaps get something good if the muatations continiue, but as the the scientists say it, for exampel the arms of some creture move to somewhere else and that may in some cases be a good thing, BUT it doesnt just go there.. it moves there trough the generations.. as for exampel the dinosaurs getting wings... they got bones that were more and more like wings.. and the result was good, but for the genes to keep on EVRY mutation has to good.. ergo they have to be good even when they are halfway trough the evoultion of getting wings... how could half-wings\half hands have done them any good... The wings didnt just pop out.. that has been scientificly proven...

 

[ferenginar]

Sir John, do you mind explaining how it was scientifically proven that wings did not just pop out, when no one was around to observe.

Whilst we are on the subject of dinosaurs, it is important to note the part played my mass extinctions that have provided the opportunity for other species to move into a niche prviously filled.

If the theory of evolution is indeed correct, then evolutionists must surely have an edge over creationists, and thereby the theory will eventually prove itself.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Sir John
I guess im beaten down at most of arguments but still, there isnt any evidence of the theory of evoulution.. Im not saying its wrong, but u cant proove it.. and anyways even if some species do mutate its a whole other thing to become to a completly new species... And a very important thing... When they mutate they will perhaps get something good if the muatations continiue, but as the the scientists say it, for exampel the arms of some creture move to somewhere else and that may in some cases be a good thing, BUT it doesnt just go there.. it moves there trough the generations.. as for exampel the dinosaurs getting wings... they got bones that were more and more like wings.. and the result was good, but for the genes to keep on EVRY mutation has to good.. ergo they have to be good even when they are halfway trough the evoultion of getting wings... how could half-wings\half hands have done them any good... The wings didnt just pop out.. that has been scientificly proven...

There are no mathematical proofs if that's what you mean, but there are acheological and biological evidences pointing at this.

As to wings - first remember that flying dinosaurs weren't birds. The most likely scenario was of developing a skin between the hands and the body. This allows for some hoverings. Later on the wings got bigger, the bones got lighter and muscles got stronger and they began to actually fly.

 

[Gothmog]

“But what I find unbelievable is a horse becoming a snake, a dog becoming a cat. I dont see how a plant could turn into an animal, or an animal into a plant. With my understanding of the universe, I find it impossible.”

A horse will not become a snake, a cat will not become a dog. They do share a common ancestor however, we all do.

If you just look at morphology it is best to stick with examples where the results look similar, such as different species of bird or something. If you look at genetics and biochemistry, then it is much easier to see the link between all life.

It is very hard to see how a plant could ‘become’ an animal; in fact it is more correct to say that they share a common ancestor that didn’t look anything like either of them morphologically speaking. However, biochemically and genetically the similarities are striking. They share so much, it is beautiful to see.

Like with other forms of scientific knowledge they can be counterintuitive, e.g. how can it be that the earth revolves around the sun – I see the sun rise and set every day! It’s only when you start wanting to predict eclipses, or planet risings that you need a model that puts the sun at the center of the solar system.

“you never seem to admit what these problems are”

The problems are very technical and if you start off by saying you don’t believe in macroevolution then you will never be able to see where the real issues are.

Some recent breakthroughs in the mechanisms of evolution include: intron and exon shuffling, and viral insertion. These could not have been discovered without modern molecular biological techniques, but they are integral to how evolution ‘works’. There were perceived problems that were solved with these mechanisms. There are other currently outstanding perceived problem.

People spend decades just reaching a point where they can understand the current state of knowledge well enough to contribute to the ToE – don’t you think they pondered the same problems as you? Their job is to find weakness in the ToE and propose testable solutions – and then test them! It seems that you are discounting this fact. The ToE does not conflict with creationism – many scientists believe in God.

“But there are people who have much evidence, logic, and proof against ToE. Some even do that for a job. There are magazines and publications on this. Though I have a feeling that the scientific community casts them away without thought.”

Please enlighten us. The feeling you have about the scientific community is simply false, scientists are trained to doubt. For some reason feeling persecuted is a part of many Christ based religions (hmm, why could that be?). The scientific community needs testable predictions to keep moving forward. It is not enough to say ‘we can’t explain this!!’, you must say ‘It could have happened this way and here’s how we can tell if it did!’

“The wings didnt just pop out.. that has been scientificly proven”

Why do you want to fall back on science? You obviously don’t have the background. Wings are a current topic of study and there are competing theories about how vestigial versions provided a reproductive advantage to their possessors. It is too big a topic to describe here (there are whole scientific meetings on the topic), but if you are really interested, start a thread and I’ll try to describe the basics.

 

[Reds4ever]

Originally posted by Ado
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

Go to Chapter 6 and do a search for "whale", you should end up with the right passage.

Nor do I believe it would actually happen, and nor I imagine did Darwin in truth, however the process involved of selection is more the point he was trying to make. You can see why it's such an easy target for opponents, they tend to focus on the bear-to-whale aspect instead of the processes. I think he was forced in later editions to either re-write or even scrap this (and other) passage.

Actually they've now found several terrestial whale species, whether these are direct decendants of present day whales or previous 'off shoots' from the lineage, they don't know, but the animals existed!

Anyone who'd like a easygoing introduction in the concepts of evolution, including the answers to the creationists 'old chestnuts (ie eyes, hives etc) should read 'Evolution: The Truimph of an Idea' by Carl Zimmer.

Hives, for instance, are not contary to evolutionary theory because the non-breeding participants of the hive are genetically related to the next generation and get a chance to ensure those genes survive.

 

[Sims2789]

GOD Created life in 7 days and there were only 2 people to begin with. the Bible says so. evolution didn't happen..

...just kidding. i believe in evolution, and nihilistic makes a good point
________
CANNABIS NEWS

 

[Ado]

Reds - I'm pretty sure there are no animals on a bear-to-whale evolutionary path which is what that particular post was about. I think maybe you've gotten some wires crossed!

Another good read is The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins. He explains in more common language the processes of evolution.