Alright, let's have it out.

No more muddying other threads with Creationism/Intelligent Design/evolutionary debates.

We're pulling out all the stops here; a full-blown scientific rumble to the death.

Creationism (and it's poorly disguised twin, Intelligent Design) are completely without scientific backing.

Creationist arguments rely on the complexity of the subjects involved and the relative ignorance of their audience to propagate.

Genetic data and the fossil record alone prove that characteristics of populations have changed significantly over time beyond any reasonable doubt. This is not in dispute in the scientific world; any dispute that exists is purely about how these changes came about.

There have been some false starts - Creationists love to bring up hoaxes like the Piltdown Man as evidence that science is too accepting of evolution. This fails to acknowledge that it was science that exposed it as a fraud. Unlike (for example) religion, science is designed to be self-correcting. That's the whole point.

Let's see what you got.

If you think that science has the answer to evreything it makes it no better than christianity or athiests.

Hell no! Science hasn't got the answers to everything, a person would have to be a fool to claim that.

But the important bit is that science is working at getting the answers instead of saying "Well shit, I don't know how this works - I guess some mysterious being did it".

(btw, when I talk about Creationism I'm talking about people rejecting science. if you think God set the universe in motion 14 trillion years ago, that's fine by me.

incidentally, I'm willing to tear down whatever religious objections you have to any part of accepted science, please consider them all on-topic for this thread)

quote:Originally posted by ilbastardoh:

If you think that science has the answer to evreything it makes it no better than christianity or athiests.

Idiot. Science is a process for determining information. Science doesn't give you answers, it provides the most logical process to go about answering a question. Science hasn't provided an answer for everything, but it has the potential to.

I live in Australia (don't hold that against me) our koalas travel at about 5 miles an hour and sleep 20 hours a day at top speed that is 20 miles a day.

So can any christian creationist please tell me how these critters got from Australia to the ark and back?

(A) in under 6,000 years (the age of the earth according to fundamentalists).

(B) without leaving fossils or any relatives along the way as they only live 20 years max.

(C) how did they and Noah collect and carry eucalyptus leaves as they will only eat a few species of eucalyptus and they must be fresh every day or they will just not eat and die ( little Koala backpacks full of leaves don't count).

(D) they can swim but badly so how did they get across the ocean to the Ark?

While you are at it the same goes for the South American three toed sloth top speed 2 miles an hour.

Also how did coral and fish survive the flood, does the bible say Noah had salt and fresh water aquariums on the ark anywhere?

Explain this in good clear science, not magic or Gods infinite power and you yourself got a convert!

I can respond for them: It was a miracle, so it doesn't have to abide by logic or scientific laws.

Yes, that's it...that's the fucking explanation I get time and time again, and the people saying it don't even realize how fucking stupid it is.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:



But the important bit is that science is working at getting the answers instead of saying "Well shit, I don't know how this works - I guess some mysterious being did it".



I was gonna post "Preach on, Rev!" But then, that'd be pretty wierd.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

I can respond for them: It was a miracle, so it doesn't have to abide by logic or scientific laws.

Every time I hear an atheist explanation for the cause of the big bang, they state (completely unaware of the irony) that it was a singularity and therefore exempt from scientific laws.

So the rather amusing basis to the argument seems to be two of the same thing. Singularity Vs Miracle.

The creationist arguement is pretty much bulletproof, and not because they're right, but because of their belief in god. They can always take the "god did it" arguement, one that is impossible to refute, because even if you ask why he did it you get a big fat "god works in mysterious ways" in the face, or are told that "you couldn't possibly understand the mind of god".

Every time evidence that could be interpretted in favour of creation creationists consider it to be absolute truth, and any evidence suggesting otherwise is either misinterpreted, work of the devil or the evidence is there to test our faith.

A load of shit? Absolutly!

Refutable? No, because god did it!

I believe God created us. Science explains how he did it. If science ever proves God false, i'll probably give in to science, but i don't expect this to ever happen. In fact, it will be much easier for God to prove evolution false than it will be for scientists to prove Creationists false.

In addition, I don't believe that adaptation can/should be extrapolated to the beginning of time to create the evolution theory. I do believe that species undergo change, but i don't believe that humans came from apes.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

I believe God created us. Science explains how he did it.

I hereby call your bluff. Specifics, please.

maybe god just put us all here and let us evolve (like he got bored or something and needed something to do) i dunno.. bitch at me if im wrong

See, the beauty of that statement is that it can't be proven wrong, nor can anything contrary to it be proven correct. It can be shown to be utterly ridiculous (and has many times), but being as god is usually constructed as ethereal, its existence is impossible to prove and impossible to disprove.

As to whomever said that all the atheists cop out with 'singularity, blah blah, doesn't follow laws of science', well, I meet very few who use that utter BS. Thing is, nobody is sure how the fuck the Big Bang happened. However, we have photographs of a rather young universe and plenty of evidence to support the theory of a singularity. What we don't have is a single shred of evidence to support a young earth, nor creationism (but plenty to invalidate it). We also have plenty of evidence to show ID as fucking ridiculous...for example, why would a God's chosen creation be in the lower rungs of the food chain until a mere 15,000 years or so ago?

One thing about Carbon Dating: A lot of people criticise it because modern and newly formed rocks can be dated off by nearly 30,000 years or so. Considering that carbon dating's inaccurate by a fixed amount rather than a percent, no shit modern crap can be dated so poorly with it. Carbon dating is used on old shit, while we have much more accurate methods of dating more modern substances.

i dont really see anybody backing up creationism on this thread. So i'll oblige :P

Lets begin with what the evolution theory is mainly based upon-the fossil record:

One problem i have with the evolution look at the fossil record is- organisms alive today are seperated into complete forms and distinct seperate types. there is no transitional link alive today. plus, the fossil record has no transitional links in it . you may think what i say is bullshit about this, but then even learned scientists admit this:

Geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed: “The living world is not a single array . . . connected by unbroken series of intergrades.” Charles Darwin admitted that “the distinctness of specific living forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.”

Evolution is meant to take thousands, even millions of years. During this time period of a organism evolving-there would have to be a lot of transitional links alive. During this time, there easily is time for fossils to be made of them. We have complete dinosaur fossils from millions of years ago. Why arent there any transitional links in the fossil record??? Theres been enough time for them to be in there, and there must of been a substantial population of these transitional links for evolution to occur.

Dont like what i said? read what the New Scientist says about it:

"“It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” As Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, must be truly enormous.”"

For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.

Go find me one and I'll beleive in evolution blindly as many do.

there are many examples of transition animals its just that creationists tend to deny their existence or importance Acheopterix is a classic example but the Icelandic 7 toed amphibian is the most important it is a fish with 7 toes and well formed arms and legs you don't see him turning up on creationist sites often.

There is a cordata recently found in South Australia too but we are dealing with items that have been lost for 3,000,000,000 years and most evidence is now that change is rapid and short followed by long periods of relative stability so it's not like looking for a taxi in New York.

as for recent evolution look at viruses like HIV it changes ot beat drug treatments if that is not evolution in action I don't know what is.

from my previous post I asked similar questions of the top creationist sites the best replies came down to "I was God's will, or a miracle or we don't know but..." sorry people but this is not a scientific theory it is superstition.

When you can back up your ideas with good science that can be published then start talking.

I live in Australia (don't hold that against me) our koalas travel at about 5 miles an hour and sleep 20 hours a day at top speed that is 20 miles a day.

So can any christian creationist please tell me how these critters got from Australia to the ark and back?

(A) in under 6,000 years (the age of the earth according to fundamentalists).

(B) without leaving fossils or any relatives along the way as they only live 20 years max.

(C) how did they and Noah collect and carry eucalyptus leaves as they will only eat a few species of eucalyptus and they must be fresh every day or they will just not eat and die ( little Koala backpacks full of leaves don't count).

(D) they can swim but badly so how did they get across the ocean to the Ark?

While you are at it the same goes for the South American three toed sloth top speed 2 miles an hour.

Also how did coral and fish survive the flood, does the bible say Noah had salt and fresh water aquariums on the ark anywhere?

Explain this in good clear science, not magic or Gods infinite power and you yourself got a convert!

Actually, scientific research found that this world-wide flood only flooded Noah's part of the Med (not even gonna try to spell it) Sea. They found huts and crap under the water that dated back to the time the flood was supposed to happen. I guess Noah just exaggerated when he wrote it because his little city was probably all of the world he'd ever seen. So, that means your precious koala's had never been flooded in the first place.

..just thought you should know =)

Can I bring a monkey into the courtroom

and hire a wannabe president to debate?

oh? already been done? sorry... http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

What I don't understand about all of you is that you actually CARE what others believe and try to put them down, or even try to make them believe in what you believe in. That is probably the most difficult concept for non-Christians to grasp. "Well if God doesn't like it, why doesn't he change it?" The Answer: Freewill. God gave us freewill. Why? Because he wanted to. That is what seperates us from Angels. God was asked "What will happen if humans don't worship you?" and to which he responded "If all the humans in the world turn their backs on me, then the rocks shall worship me." in lamens terms. Is that an exact quote? No, but you get the gist of it. I believe what I believe simply because I believe it. Simple as that. Faith is faith is faith, and there is nothing that anybody can do to change it. It is through God's Will that things are done. If someone decides to listen to God, then they are doing what He wants, otherwise they aren't. Some people say the Bible is contradicting. For example, it tells people to help others, but to do things on your own. I, personally, interpret it as "Always offer help. Don't take help unless it is offered. Never ask for help." sorta thing. Anyway, I'm done with my rave, breakfast is ready. I'll bbl.

Have fun,

Discipulus

quote:Originally posted by Mad dog:

there are many examples of transition animals its just that creationists tend to deny their existence or importance Acheopterix is a classic example....

When you can back up your ideas with good science that can be published then start talking.

"At one time evolutionists believed that Archaeopteryx, meaning “ancient wing” or “ancient bird,” was a link between reptile and bird. But now, many do not. Its fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers on aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wing and leg bones were thin and hollow. Its supposed reptilian features are found in birds today. And it does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period as Archaeopteryx"

New Scientist http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

well... just for the record let me state that biological evolution is known to be FACT. Douglas J. Futuyma writes in his book "Evolutionary Biology":

"the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century."

the evidence is just so overwhelming, that no respected biologist questions it. nevermind, you quoted Theodosius Dobzhansky. WELL, perhaps you might have also read this quote, which he wrote in an article for "American Biology Teacher":

"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."

no credible biologist regards creationism as a possibility. evolution is considered a fact. the ONLY thing biologists form theories about is HOW it happens, the mechanisms of evolution.

Neil A. Campbell writes in a biology textbook used by many universities:

"Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution."

i'll leave you with this... H. J. Muller writes in an issue of "School Science and Mathematics":

"When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....



'So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words."

there is no person that i can think of, or locate, that has access to all of the information, all of the evidence, and is in a position to understand all of that evidence, that does NOT consider evolution a fact. what you or i know we can only gather from books, from articles, etc. that the people in that postion provide us. the people who write these articles KNOW the evidence, they discover it, they classify it, they understand it. they are the only ones who can make any claims of certainty and they have no agenda other than to find out the truth. as far as they are concerned, the truth is evolution is FACT.

i'll never in my lifetime have access to the resources or evidence that they do, nor will i probably ever be capable of understanding it as well and as thoroughly as they do... i am inclined to trust them and to believe THEM, as opposed to the people saying "there is no proof-god made everything, end of story."

It should be noted that a corollary of evolutionary theory is that, when the environment for an organism is in more-or-less equilibrium, change would work even slower, what with fewer challenges to adapt to. It's when outside species, climate change, etc. intervene that you get so-called "arms races" in adaptation.

This doesn't explain why there's such a dearth of links, but then, one must realize that the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution (slightly different from Darwin's model) doesn't predict neat little family trees with perfect, even linkage.

yes, very good point.. it's also a common misconception among creationists that evolution is measured in years.. it isn't.. it's measured in GENERATIONS..

likewise, it is a misconception that evolution is applied to species... this is also not true.. it's applied to GROUPS of a particular species.. no one says people came from monkeys... evolution concludes that humans and apes share a common ancestor..

building on the last post, if an isolated group of a particular species experienced a change in climate, or a change in or loss of a food source, etc. then their equilibrium is disrupted and they are forced to gradually adapt.. it isn't a matter of "over a few years the existing members of the species evolve" ...no biologist has ever tried to express that view.. it is a matter of, over the course of several generations, the offspring produced begins to evolve gradually, to compensate for the drastic changes the group has experienced.. over many generations, which can add up to many thousands of years, the changes in the members of the group continue until the group once again reaches an equilibrium with its environment..

Well, a couple people already took the response I had, so I must add in that we have cases of evolution RECENTLY in small, quickly reproducing species.

(Do not take my word for this, google it and look around and you're sure to have better luck than my lazy ass [I only checked the first two results]):

I really wish I could find an article on it at the moment, but I can't. A species of mosquitos branched from the parent species within 20 years of being isolated in a subway system. They were so distinguished after the 20 year period that they were no longer able to breed with the parent species, and most likely none of the future sister species that would arrive due to other environmental changes the parent species could be introduced to.

While still mosquitos, these new ones are now an isolated and unique species, ones that did not exist previously and ones that were not created on the spot by a god. If that doesn't support evolution, I don't know what kind of shit creationists need for evidence.

[This message has been edited by Hexadecimal (edited 04-25-2004).]

yes, i have heard of that! that does support evolution quite nicely.. insects and the like are the best source of evidence we have for evolution.. the lifespans of mosquitos and other insects are much shorter than that of mammals, etc. and so while only 20 years passed, that short period provided ample time for many generations and therefore, the group was able to evolve to adapt to fit its new environment..

and as far as the people asking about why there are no "links" in the fossil record.. fossils of ANY sort that serve as useful to biologists, etc. are extremely rare.. it takes very specific circumstances to make a fossil of an animal, and so good specimens are few and far between.. it is insane, especially considering the amounts of time involved-tens to hundreds of millions of years, to expect to find fossils representative of every single phase in the evolution of a single species, let alone many..

the fossil record shows BEYOND A DOUBT a progression of lifeforms and species throughout time.. that should be sufficient... but creationists will never accept anything at face value, especially something that questions their faith.. evolution rocked their faith, so they wanted proof.. over the years much has been gathered and classified, to the point that evolution is now a fact in the scientific world.. when the fossil record evidence was introduced, creationists couldn't accept it so they asked for MORE.. now they want the "links" ...something far more difficult to supply.. incidentally, there have been SOME links identified, and the creationist argument seems to be more isolated to the fact that they don't want to accept that humans and apes share a common ancestor.. no matter how much evidence for evolution there is and how many links are found for other species, until that missing link for humans is found... i doubt they will ever acknowledge evolution.. given the history of creationism, i think that even if the missing "link" IS identified (even though it's likely there are many stages, many links) creationists will probably come up with some problem with the evidence and demand more still..

when god is in the equation, it doesn't matter how much hard evidence you have... people will still ignore/dismiss/deny it..

take a look at what some creationists say about the fossil record-and what also pro evolution scientists say about it:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> New Scientist on the fossil record-

“It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” As Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous

-so there must be lots and lots of missing links between groups of species somewhere??

<LI>The Genesis record of life:

If the Genesis record is factual, it would show that each different type of living thing would reproduce only “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.

In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly admitted: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution"

Darwin said this before many of the fossils were uncovered. So, given time, has the fossil record produced anything of note?

<LI>The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.”

<LI>Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.

<LI>Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson said after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”

<LI> Evolutionary thinking should mean that life began very simple, and becomes more and more complex over time. But what does the fossil record show?

-“fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed."(Evolution From Space)

-Jastrow says:

The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms,”

“The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”

</UL>

If the evolutionary take on the fossil record is true, why is there all these fundamental holes in it? These are unexplainable. During the Cambrian period, these simple lifeforms suddenly developed into complex, often shelled life forms. This is reffered to as the explosion of life.

But most intrestingly,

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>A View of Life

“Some extinct trilobites, in fact, developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living arthropod possesses.

</UL>

I thought these were supposed to come from really basic life forms? Eyes are amazingly complex, so how did they suddenly get eyes better than a lot of living things today??? Creationists would argue that God introduced these species to the environment. Again, the evolution theory has no real answer to this. The whole creation theory is just as mysterious, but it does make sense.

I just LOVE when people bring up eyes. There is a well documented series of transition from the most basic photosensitive cells all the way up to the massively powerful and amazingly complex bird eye.

Also, you are relying far too heavily on arguement from authority. Put some more of your own words into your messages instead of just random qoutes (several out of context).

quote:Originally posted by Mad dog:

as for recent evolution look at viruses like HIV it changes ot beat drug treatments if that is not evolution in action I don't know what is.



I hate to burst your bubble (or do I? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)) but that is actually an example of adaptation.

nevermind, everything you noted (several parts were out of context, as hex said) can be characterized simply as "problems" as of yet unsolved by biologists, etc. regarding evolution.. what you said is NOT proof of creationism, it's simply stating the missing pieces (regarding evolution) as if it somehow proved creationism.. lack of evidence for one argument does not constitute proof for another..

you neglected to address the points that were made in the posts before yours... most importantly, you did not address the fact that NOW, evolution can be observed in certain species first hand.. we can observe the process, we can study it, it is real, right now, happening as we speak.. insects are not mammals, etc. true, but that fact is unimportant when you consider the time frame of evolution... generations.. the study of evolution is still, i think it is fair to say, in relation to human existence... quite young.. insects and the like are the only types of creatures that we can observe these changes in first hand, because their lifespans are so short and their reproductive cycles also short.. generations in these species come and go quickly in human time.. we cannot observe these changes in more complex creatures because the study of evolution hasn't existed that long... there is no reliable source of specimens for study.. we have to rely on fossils, etc. which unfortunately can deteriorate, can be destroyed over the course of millions of years, etc.. if it weren't hard enough to find relevant fossils to begin with, finding complete, usable, or important fossils is even more difficult..

as far as your "explosion of life" comment... that sounds like a dated argument.. such arguments seem to measure evolution in terms of years, as if one year there was no complex life and suddenly, a month later there was... it makes it sound way too fast.. how exactly do you define "suddenly"?

evolution IS measured in generations and over the course of several generations, these lifeforms absolutely could have evolved.. you are measuring these changes in human years... that is wrong.. these simpler lifeforms reproduce much more rapidly than human beings... in a single year they may go through dozens of generations.. that most certainly allows for these changes over a short number of years..

like the mosquitos mentioned a few posts up... the evolution of those creatures was observed by humans because they reproduce faster than us, and while in human years it was only around 2 decades... in mosquito lifecycles, it was many many generations..

you have to understand context... place these things in perspective.. not everything takes place on the same scale.. these changes ARE possible and completely probable, given the types of organisms, their reproductive rates, lifecycles, etc.

[This message has been edited by smsawyer (edited 04-27-2004).]

Its nice to see this debate get its own thread. Perhaps we should invite some creationists, as debates usually have two sides...

I'd argue their side as the devil's advocate, but I can barely CnP 'evidence' of Creationism due to the bursts of laughter and convulsions produced by them.

quote:Originally posted by Mad dog:

Also how did coral and fish survive the flood, does the bible say Noah had salt and fresh water aquariums on the ark anywhere?

Explain this in good clear science, not magic or Gods infinite power and you yourself got a convert!



How did fish survive a massive amount of water? Let's take a wild guess...

You want something explained with science, so that you can forsake science and say God made everything? Interesting logic...

quote:Originally posted by Nephtys-Ra:

How did [b]fish survive a massive amount of water? Let's take a wild guess...

B]

umm...

You do realize that if enough water to "cover the earth" was to fall from the sky in 40 days and 40 nights, so much sand/silt/other crap would be stired up, that fish wouldn't be able to breath.

Which brings up another question, although I'm not sure I'm right with it... if the whole earth was flooded, wouldn't that mean that more or less, the salt from the oceans would more or less mix with all the water, and when the water's receeded, a lot of salt would be left everywhere... causing a LOT of problems for plants.

Quit using logic! It's harming my faith!

alright alright. that bloody mosquito example that everyone seems to drag up as proof of evolution. well its not hard to make it not proof if you take a long hard look at it.

okay, so one day a scientist notices mosquitos. so then he notes what species they are. a few years later, the species of mosquitos have changed. But, its not a scientific experiement at all. how can you track mosquitos? they are so small. and we all know that animals can adapt-eg bacteria adapt, but stay the same essentialy.

so mosquitos adapt, and become stronger. these stronger ones then push out the older ones. but, they are still mosquitos!!. they havent evolved into something new, they have adapted their original species.

and we all know that animals only mate with the strongest they can find. so how can a scientist get 2 breeds of mosquito to mate?? you would have to get several hundred in a box, and you would find that the strongest mosquitos breed with the strongest mosquitos. i doubt that these 2 different varietys of mosquitos cant interbreed, but that they choose not to.

if a scientist artifically inseminated the 2 different types of mosquito-they would lay hybrid eggs. but because they are so bloody small, its amazingly difficult to do this. you cant say this is proof of evolution.

and to the people that say that we have documented processes of eyes developing...care to move your retina a few milimetres in any direction?? you'll become partially blind straight away. eyes are so complicated, you are simplyfing the problem too much. and evolution is supposed to take a very long time, and eyes are amazingly complex, just as the ears and brain are.

so how do cambrian fish suddenly develop eyes more complicated than many surviving species today?? and i mean suddenly, they just appear, with no lineage behind them having anything like it at all.

You want to know the unbeatable argument against evolution? It's a compilation of things that just don't make any sense about evolution... by evolutionists:

First of all, there's a time problem. A single bacterium - the earliest form of life - has two thousand enzymes. Scientists have estimated how long it would take to randomly assemble those enxymes from a primordial soup. Estimates run from forty billion years to one hundred billion years. But the earth is only four billion years old. So, chance alone seems too slow. Particularly since we know bacteria actually appeared only four hundred million years after the earth began...

Second, there's the coordination problem. If you believe the current theory, then all the wonderful complexity of life is nothing but the accumulation of chance events - a bunch of genetic accidents strung together. Yet when we look closely at animals, it appears as if many elements must have evolved simultaneously. Take bats, which have echolocation - they navigate by sound. To do that, many things must evolve. Bats need a specialized apparatus to make sounds, they need specialized ears to hear echoes, they need specialized brains to interpret the sounds, and they need specialized bodies to dive and swoop and catch insects. If all these things don't evolve simultaneously, there's no advantage. And to imagine all these things happen purely by chance is like imagining that a tornado can hit a junkyard and assemble the parts into a working 747 airplane...

Next problem. Evolution doesn't always act like a blind force should. Certain environmental niches don't get filled. Certain plants don't get eaten. And certain animals don't evolve much. Sharks haven't changed for a hundred and sixty million years. Opossums haven't chanced since dinosaurs became extinct, sixty-five million years ago. The environments for these animals have changed dramatically, but the animals have remained almost the same. Not exactly the same, but almost. In other words, it appears they haven't responded to their environment...



Now for a few more arguments:

Let's follow the creation of the theory of evolution.

Fact 1 - environments change (long known fact)

Fact 2 - animals change to be able to survive environmental changes (Darwin's hypothesis)

Hypothesis - we look like monkeys, so we must have evolved from apes, who evolved from something else... say possums... who evolved from rodents... all the way back to the primordial soup that springs into existance at the creation of the world, when the gases left over from a star's birth coagulate into a planet.

Logical init?

Next, if we're evolutionary superior to apes, how come they have 48 chromosomes and we only have 46?

Natural selection works, because the potential for a change was already in their DNA. There is no recorded instance of any species gaining or losing genetic data, outside of viral insertion or radiation. Think about that. For creatures to evolve from single celled organisms would require.... OH! ADVANCED VIRUSES TO ALREADY EXIST! Radiation can only remove data, not add.

Seriously, there is no logic to evolution, it's a wacked out theory that some random (not even Darwin) put together. Natural selection works, evolution doesn't.

[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 04-29-2004).]

First of all, there's a time problem. A single bacterium - the earliest form of life - has two thousand enzymes. Scientists have estimated how long it would take to randomly assemble those enxymes from a primordial soup. Estimates run from forty billion years to one hundred billion years. But the earth is only four billion years old. So, chance alone seems too slow. Particularly since we know bacteria actually appeared only four hundred million years after the earth began...

Study algorithms and shut up, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Second, there's the coordination problem. If you believe the current theory, then all the wonderful complexity of life is nothing but the accumulation of chance events - a bunch of genetic accidents strung together. Yet when we look closely at animals, it appears as if many elements must have evolved simultaneously. Take bats, which have echolocation - they navigate by sound. To do that, many things must evolve. Bats need a specialized apparatus to make sounds, they need specialized ears to hear echoes, they need specialized brains to interpret the sounds, and they need specialized bodies to dive and swoop and catch insects. If all these things don't evolve simultaneously, there's no advantage. And to imagine all these things happen purely by chance is like imagining that a tornado can hit a junkyard and assemble the parts into a working 747 airplane...

Do you know what gradiants are? None of those one qualities of a bat is useless by itself. Not as useful as when coordinated, but still useful. Also, have you read about punctuated equilibrium? Once again, shut the fuck up, you don't know what you're talking about.

Next problem. Evolution doesn't always act like a blind force should. Certain environmental niches don't get filled. Certain plants don't get eaten. And certain animals don't evolve much. Sharks haven't changed for a hundred and sixty million years. Opossums haven't chanced since dinosaurs became extinct, sixty-five million years ago. The environments for these animals have changed dramatically, but the animals have remained almost the same. Not exactly the same, but almost. In other words, it appears they haven't responded to their environment...

Plants not being eaten disproves evolution how? ...and animals don't change when the environment they're in, even after being modified, is suitable to them.



Now for a few more arguments:

Let's follow the creation of the theory of evolution.

Fact 1 - environments change (long known fact)

Fact 2 - animals change to be able to survive environmental changes (Darwin's hypothesis)

Hypothesis - we look like monkeys, so we must have evolved from apes, who evolved from something else... say possums... who evolved from rodents... all the way back to the primordial soup that springs into existance at the creation of the world, when the gases left over from a star's birth coagulate into a planet.

Wrong, we did not evolve from apes. Apes and Humans have a common ancestor, and every great once in awhile, we find another skeleton that helps build the tree back towards the split.

Next, if we're evolutionary superior to apes, how come they have 48 chromosomes and we only have 46?

Less chromosomes needed. We get it done with 46, they need 48 to be an ape and still don't have the survivability of humans. Efficiency is the by-product of natural selection.

Natural selection works, because the potential for a change was already in their DNA. There is no recorded instance of any species gaining or losing genetic data, outside of viral insertion or radiation. Think about that. For creatures to evolve from single celled organisms would require.... OH! ADVANCED VIRUSES TO ALREADY EXIST! Radiation can only remove data, not add.

DNA self replicates, can grow in length without viruses, can shorten in length without virus. Random mutations caused neither by radiation nor viruses are very well documented. There are many documented instances of gaining or losing genetic data, outside of viral insertion or radiation.

Seriously, there is no logic to evolution, it's a wacked out theory that some random (not even Darwin) put together. Natural selection works, evolution doesn't.

There's plenty of logic behind it if you know what the fuck you're talking about. Research algorithms, and then the possibilities of evolution's prerequisites randomly forming seem pretty damned nice. Also, algorithms make great sense of punctuated equilibrium and the ability for things such as the eye to develop.

okay, so one day a scientist notices mosquitos. so then he notes what species they are. a few years later, the species of mosquitos have changed. But, its not a scientific experiement at all. how can you track mosquitos? they are so small. and we all know that animals can adapt-eg bacteria adapt, but stay the same essentialy.

The difference is though, these mosquitos developed new respiratory systems. Not stronger ones, but DIFFERENT ones. Their new ones were able to filter toxins unlike their parents species, so they were able to thrive in the subway environment. Their eyes also degraded into photosensitive bulbs rather than intricate viewing tools. They physically changed, and not just slightly, they are a different species of mosquito with DNA incompatible enough with the parent species that breeding was no longer possible with them. They were not stronger nor faster, just pollutant resistant with eyes more useful for their setting.

so mosquitos adapt, and become stronger. these stronger ones then push out the older ones. but, they are still mosquitos!!. they havent evolved into something new, they have adapted their original species.

Of course they're still mosquitos, but a different species that's just as weak, but with a different respiratory system and different eyes.

and we all know that animals only mate with the strongest they can find. so how can a scientist get 2 breeds of mosquito to mate?? you would have to get several hundred in a box, and you would find that the strongest mosquitos breed with the strongest mosquitos. i doubt that these 2 different varietys of mosquitos cant interbreed, but that they choose not to.

They're just as weak as the others, they'd breed if they could.

if a scientist artifically inseminated the 2 different types of mosquito-they would lay hybrid eggs. but because they are so bloody small, its amazingly difficult to do this. you cant say this is proof of evolution.

Yes, I can, because their lungs and eyes changed very rapidly to suit an environment they couldn't withstand too easily otherwise. Whether a hybrid can be made or not is of no use either if the species, naturally, cannot mate. Artificial insemination can force hybrids in species that cannot naturally breed.

and to the people that say that we have documented processes of eyes developing...care to move your retina a few milimetres in any direction?? you'll become partially blind straight away. eyes are so complicated, you are simplyfing the problem too much. and evolution is supposed to take a very long time, and eyes are amazingly complex, just as the ears and brain are.

No, eyes aren't that complicated. Mammalian and bird eyes are rather complicated when compared to most other eyes, but there is a clear gradiant of their developement throughout nature. Move my retina a bit and I'll still be able to see light and dark; find my way out of caves, detect the glow of light off of surface water, see more developed eyes reflecting light at me...just because it doesn't have as much use as the human or bird eye does not make it useless. Some eyes are a single photosensitive cell on small organisms to detect light...that's essentially what a misplaced retina would be.

[/b]so how do cambrian fish suddenly develop eyes more complicated than many surviving species today?? and i mean suddenly, they just appear, with no lineage behind them having anything like it at all.[/b]

Do you mean Cambrian Period fish (jellyfish and their like), or fish from Cambrian Quarry fossil digs?

If the first, simply put, eyes are not all that damned complex, and cambrian period fishes didn't have that complex of eyes. They're barely on level with dog's eyes; know that dogs have some of the shittiest mammalian eyes.

If the second, same as the first in the reply.

quote:

Study algorithms and shut up, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.



study these:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists.

<LI>Booker also stated: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.” He concluded: “As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall.

<LI>New Scientist observed that “an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.

</UL>

dont pass up the eye evolving so easily...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>“To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

<LI>Jastrow-“The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.”

</UL>

Jastrow knows a whole lot more about evolution than any of you do, and he admits the eye is impossible to have evolved. You that argue for evolution overly simplfy things, and swallow down whole what you were taught in high school, without ever being taught a differing opinion on the subject, or being taught what prominent scientist's say about it being wrong.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”

</UL>

it seems that you all dont understand evolution at all, those of you who back it up without ever looking at critical evidence against it. Hexadecimal, you put down vamp's arguement, without actually addressing any of the problems he put forwards.

now for some figures for you to mull over.

The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe

great proof you have there.

heres something else for you to consider. When thinking of the eye evolving-stop thinking of it as evolving by itself. The whole body has to evolve to actually use this eye.

Heres why-the brain has to be advanced enough, to understand any of the signals coming through the nerves from the eye. So the eye is useless unless the brain is good enough. Its the same as the ears.

A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place.

Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?

heres another quote for you;

Jastrow- : “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

here's one for you-it's my own.. "Creationists have NO proof, whatsoever, that it was.." http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

all i'm seeing here is people posting their problems with evolution, pointing out the problems that have yet to be solved, etc. and NOWHERE do i see anyone giving ANY proof to support creationism.. nowhere.. why? because there is NONE..

sorry, but the fact that there are a few holes in the evolution story, does not PROVE anything as far as creationism is concerned.. i haven't seen a single word here that can be said to support any creationist argument... nothing.. you keep arguing the evolution evidence, ripping it apart, and barking your heads off about what problems you have with it... well, give US something.. give me ANYTHING that can be said to prove creationism, and grant us that same luxury..

seems like we're the only ones coming up with any information, and you're just sitting back and ripping it apart.. must be fun! i'd love to try it, but there is NO evidence to support creationism, so i guess i'll never get the chance? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

see, that is a fact.. there is NO evidence to support creationism.. only some holes in the evidence of evolution... which i have complete confidence will be filled in due time.. either way, i'd like to see someone attempt to argue evidence FOR creationism... because i haven't seen any, ever heard of any, and don't believe there is any anywhere... so, someone impress me.. come on..

[This message has been edited by smsawyer (edited 04-29-2004).]

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: ?The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology?s last twenty years has inflamed passions.? He spoke of the ?lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,? and added, ?things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists.

Arguements over HOW it happened does not mean argueing over IF it happened. Not a single biologist informed on the issue would deny evolution unless they happened to be psychotic.

Booker also stated: ?A century after Darwin?s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place?and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.? He concluded: ?As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall.

I'll trust my own studies into the matter over a qoute from one single authority figure when there is plenty of evidence to show what he said incorrect.

New Scientist observed that ?an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.

Once again, disagreements over how do not mean disagreements over if. No, we are not sure how evolution occurs. All we know, for absolute fact, is that it does occur. We have only identified one method it uses, and that is natural selection. There could be thousands of processes used to drive evolution, and we're working on finding out what they are and how they work.

?To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Source of qoute please? And once again, one authority figure disagreeing doesn't mean they are right. You are using the logical fallacy of arguing from authority. Show EVIDENCE of the eye evolving being absurd.

Jastrow-?The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.?

And sometimes, under the right lighting, my car is purple instead of green. Evolution isn't a designer, it's an occurence. Natural selection, and whatever other processes drive evolution, most certainly can, and did, produce the eye and what else was needed for it to function.

Jastrow knows a whole lot more about evolution than any of you do, and he admits the eye is impossible to have evolved. You that argue for evolution overly simplfy things, and swallow down whole what you were taught in high school, without ever being taught a differing opinion on the subject, or being taught what prominent scientist's say about it being wrong.

You assume I swollowed information in high school...they weren't even allowed to teach the fact of evolution in my school, and weren't even allowed to go into the theory thanks to religous groups tight hold on the district I attended. I've learned what I know from studying hundreds of documents from various fields of science, and from various, well supported, evidence covered books.

Francis Hitching observed: ?In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.?

Punctuated Equilibrium is not a problem, it makes more sense than if genes changed at a regular pace. New species aren't going to evolve and survive if environmental changes do not support the genetic changes that occur. Also, genes, while designed to be stable, are often not. They mutate, delete, translate, extend, and shorten quite often.

it seems that you all dont understand evolution at all, those of you who back it up without ever looking at critical evidence against it. Hexadecimal, you put down vamp's arguement, without actually addressing any of the problems he put forwards.

Yes, I did address his points by telling him to research algorithms and then talk about chance. I suggest you do the same. 1 in 1^113 isn't that difficult. If you deny something on that chance, I wonder why you don't deny God when I'm sure the chances of an invisible and all powerful entity are much much less than the necessary components of life occuring randomly.

now for some figures for you to mull over.

The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe

Sorry pal, but I've never met a serious scientist who would dismiss a chance because it's small when there's evidence to support that the 1 in X DID occur.

great proof you have there.

It is good proof if you study the shit and know what you're talking about. Once again, study algorithms, and the whole spiel about chances being too small disappears. Anything is possible, no matter how small the chance, and when evidence supports that small chance occurence having happened, it doesn't fucking matter how 'likely' it was to occur, because it DID occur.

heres something else for you to consider. When thinking of the eye evolving-stop thinking of it as evolving by itself. The whole body has to evolve to actually use this eye.

To use an advanced eye like ours, yes, it has to be fully developed. To use a photosensitive cell, all that is needed is the cell, and a receptive nerve. Plants do not have eyes on the level of animals, but they do have photosensitive cells that enable them to find light and grow towards it even without a brain to process it; in all honesty, not even a receptive nerve is necessary, but it does help continue the chain of an eye evolving.

Heres why-the brain has to be advanced enough, to understand any of the signals coming through the nerves from the eye. So the eye is useless unless the brain is good enough. Its the same as the ears.

Bullshit. Several micro sized organisms have photosensitive cells (the precursor to eyes) and no nerves, but it is still of use.

A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place.

For advanced sight, hearing, or thinking to take place, yes, all parts must work together. For basic sight, such as photosensitivity (!), all that is needed is a single cell. For basic hearing, all that is needed is a few cells that vibrate. For basic thinking, all that is needed is a few neurons. The chances of any of those developing independently? Small as hell, yes, but they exist in many small organisms, so the slim chance won out over the odds.

Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?

No, chance alone could not. Natural selection had a part in it. Any organism with basic sight, hearing, or thought, had a massive advantage over those without; these organisms would be able to reproduce and survive at much better rates.

Jastrow- : ?Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.

Well no shit, creationism is purely ethereal in nature. If a God exists, he could have willed evolution. What scientists do have proof of, is something entirely contradictory to a young Earth and very solidly proven in that regard. What I'm wondering though, is that if you are skeptical about something with so much evidence to back it up and observable in insects and micro-organisms, how are you not skeptical of creationism itself when not only is there no evidence to support it whatsoever, there is evidence to contradict most versions of creation.

hex, you took the words out of my mouth.. your last paragraph hits it right on the head.. it seems completely illogical to present an argument against evolution in an attempt to support creationism, when the argument being presented works even moreso against creationism..

i'd be interested in an explanation of that as well..

We live in a universe whose laws absolutely contradict the theory of evolution.

Point #1:

There is no law that lets something evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, then nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

Evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concernd with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain a next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.

Point #2:

There is no scientific law that lets one type of organism to evolve into a completely different type of organism. For example, fish won't evolve into a type of non-fish simply because they do not have the genes to do it. Most evolutionists say that this happened due to a serious of mutations and natural selection, but what do they know.

The fact is that mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce organisms that are more handicapped than the parent(s). Natural selection just kills the misfit organisms, too.. so thats basically useless in evolution. Take, for example, the loveable giraffe. Their long neck needs a very powerful heart to pump blood all the way to the brain. By rights the blood flow should blow its brains out when it bends to drink water, but the Giraffe has a small series of spigots and a sponge that absorb the rush of blood. How could that evolve? Mr. Giraffe needs all these parts there all the time, or he would die =(

Last Point:

Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. As they say, it's "just like magic." If you can explain what causes an organism to evolve (not adapt, but evolve), and how they chemically/physically go about doing it.. you just might make a evolutionist of me.

Point #1:

There is no law that lets something evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, then nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

Evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concernd with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain a next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.

Sorry, but matter does randomly pop into existence. Point 1=destroyed.

Point #2:

There is no scientific law that lets one type of organism to evolve into a completely different type of organism. For example, fish won't evolve into a type of non-fish simply because they do not have the genes to do it. Most evolutionists say that this happened due to a serious of mutations and natural selection, but what do they know.

The fact is that mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce organisms that are more handicapped than the parent(s). Natural selection just kills the misfit organisms, too.. so thats basically useless in evolution. Take, for example, the loveable giraffe. Their long neck needs a very powerful heart to pump blood all the way to the brain. By rights the blood flow should blow its brains out when it bends to drink water, but the Giraffe has a small series of spigots and a sponge that absorb the rush of blood. How could that evolve? Mr. Giraffe needs all these parts there all the time, or he would die =(

Every living organism with DNA has the genes to becomes ANY other living organisms; all that is needed is mutations (Which while most often harming the organism, have proven beneficial to some, especially smaller ones), translations, deletions, and extension. What they know is what the past century has uncovered in microbiology and genetic research. Also, traits can evolve that aren't useful but aren't hinderances either. The spongey system of the giraffe could have evolved while the ancestral species still had a short neck. Point 2=destroyed.

Last Point:

Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. As they say, it's "just like magic." If you can explain what causes an organism to evolve (not adapt, but evolve), and how they chemically/physically go about doing it.. you just might make a evolutionist of me.

While we're unsure of how many mechanisms there are and how each operates, it appears that evolution occurs when DNA gets mutated or otherwise modifies itself and the resulting change benefits the newborn enough to allow survival. These mutations wouldn't be permanent if they happened past the early stages of birth, or are not inherit in the fertilized egg or sperm, or if they were to occur in single celled organisms after mitosis. The mutations that allow evolution to occur are caused most often by imperfect replication, resulting in translation or deletion. This most often results in still birth or miscarraige, occasionally no noticeable change, and very rarely, a healthy (meaning fertile and survivable) species with a slightly different structure or internals is born. The process can be continued and deviate from the parent species, or the genetic 'flaw' can be bred back into the parent species if the change was not drastic enough to cause single generation speciation. I'd spend a few hours here to explain how replications go wrong and all, but I'm sure you can find plenty of websites detailing mitosis and possible problems that can occur.

Edit: While not magical, it certainly is astounding how advanced such a seemingly simple process is. It's the complexity of cellular mitosis that makes the mechanisms of evolution so debateable, and it's also the complexity that allows evolution to occur as more mistakes can occur during replication (or mitosis for the entire cell). Point 3=hopefully clarified. I know it's impossible at this time in science to give absolute answers on your point, but that's because we're still trying to find what other mechanisms besides flawed replication and natural selection are involved in evolution; fact is though, species replace species that could no longer survive. That's all evolution fact is, that species, overtime, are overtaken by more survivable ones. Evolutionary theory would be the mechanisms. The common proven one is natural selection, which has been determined to play only a minor role in it (it's the test phase of evolution; determines which species are more suitable to survive). The one people talk about less often is the one I just did: flaws in replication during mitosis, it's just as proven to be a mechanism of evolution as natural selection, though less understood due to the nature of the flaws (they are quite random, and usually harmful flaws). I doubt I made you an evolutionist, but I hope you can atleast see there is some good evidence behind evolutionary theory. Evolutionary law is generally accepted by everyone as it can be observed everywhere in nature, nor does it contradict most creationist accounts (which would falsify it in the eyes of many religous folk who deem their scripture as more truthful than any work of man).



[This message has been edited by Hexadecimal (edited 04-30-2004).]

Go to talkorigins.org for any questions you may have reguarding evolution.

quote:Originally posted by nevermind:

“To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.



This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. Usually, the source making the claim quotes Darwin saying the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with three and a half pages proposing intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps [Darwin 1872].

- photosensitive cell.

- aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve.

- an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells

- and covered by translucent skin.

- pigment cells forming a small depression.

-pigment cells forming a deeper depression.

- the skin over the depression taking a lens shape.

- muscles allowing the lens to adjust.

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes don't fossilize well, we don't know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly can't claim that no path exists.

Nilsson and Pelger [1994] calculated that, if each step were a 1% change, the evolution of the eye would take 1829 steps, which could happen in 350,000 generations.

quote:

Nilsson and Pelger [1994] calculated that, if each step were a 1% change, the evolution of the eye would take 1829 steps, which could happen in 350,000 generations.

Okay, if its supposed to take so bloody long to do this, then why do some cambrian organisms have better eyes than many living arthropods today??? these are at the beggining of the explosion of life, there must of been a fucking HUGE jump to do this.

quote:

For basic sight, such as photosensitivity (!), all that is needed is a single cell.



okay, so you are telling me that plants, which are ALL photosensitive, including basic things such as algae....can see?? there is a big big difference between photosensitivity and actually seeing, understanding and comprehending shapes and colours of any kind.

and plants have had this photosensitivity for millions of years. why therefore, is there no single plant, if sight is such a big advantage that evolved eyes??? its because photosensitivity is far removed from actual SIGHT

quote:



Heres why-the brain has to be advanced enough, to understand any of the signals coming through the nerves from the eye. So the eye is useless unless the brain is good enough. Its the same as the ears.

Bullshit. Several micro sized organisms have photosensitive cells (the precursor to eyes) and no nerves, but it is still of use.



you are massively over simplyfying the problem. sight is very much different from photosenstivity. these micro sized organisms are called algae?? or plants basically. and they cannot see a great big huge whale coming to eat them, or understand that they are the basic food for millions of fish, or even comprehend sunlight.

there photosenstivity just makes them react to the sunlight, eg create starch. this is NOT sight.

quote:

1 in 1^113 isn't that difficult

mathematicians would aknowledge that this chance is impossible.

quote:



ew species aren't going to evolve and survive if environmental changes do not support the genetic changes that occur. Also, genes, while designed to be stable, are often not. They mutate, delete, translate, extend, and shorten quite often.



Yes, Genese do mutate. but DNA has an amazing ability to fix itself. tests carried out on fruit flies who's dna was mutated by radiation, after a few generations these mutations were rectified and the fruit flies were back to as they were. the mutations did not stay in the species. plus, the mutations kept the flies as the same species, all the mutations did was to horribly mutilate the flies, yet they were still flies.

quote:

Show EVIDENCE of the eye evolving being absurd.

show me evidence of the eye evolving. there is none. and yet again, i will bring up the example of some cambrian species having better eyes than many creatures alive today. and again, photosensitivity becoming SIGHT is an amazing difference.

nevermind, did you even read what dark_magneto wrote? he addressed the eyes issue directly..

and you of all people should visit talkorigins.org.. it is an amazingly well documented, well organized site and it holds much, if not all, of the evidence for evolution.. i was surprised at how much information is there and how well documented it all is, complete with fossils, photographs, graphs, illustrations, etc. everything is explained in explicit detail, so there is no chance for confusion..

i recommend you read through some of the work there.. it might open your EYES..

quote:Random mutations caused neither by radiation nor viruses are very well documented.

A mutation isn't gaining of genetic data. It's an unnatural alteration of what's there. You don't gain chromosomes by mutating the way you're saying.

quote:Study algorithms and shut up, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Nice bullshit artistry. Algorithms are just equations.

quote:Do you know what gradiants are?

Increase to vertical on the physical plane. Again, good bullshit artistry.

quote:Apes and Humans have a common ancestor, and every great once in awhile, we find another skeleton that helps build the tree back towards the split.

Actually the 'hole' in the fossil record is only getting bigger, with the introduction of genetic testing.

quote:DNA self replicates, can grow in length

Pity it can't grow extra chromosomes.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Thing is, nobody is sure how the fuck the Big Bang happened.

Then how do atheists have any validity in attempting to tear down theists who at least put a notion forward other than a "don't know"?

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

However, we have photographs of a rather young universe and plenty of evidence to support the theory of a singularity.

What?? Where?? How the hell can you have evidence for a singularity??

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

What we don't have is a single shred of evidence to support a young earth, nor creationism (but plenty to invalidate it).

Creationism is a logical, scientifically researched piece of reasoning to ultimately a belief. If evidence existed either way then we wouldn't be having this debate. And as there's no evidence behind the scientifically popular (but scientifically inept) atheism, you are in-effect contradicting your argument's sake.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

We also have plenty of evidence to show ID as fucking ridiculous...for example, why would a God's chosen creation be in the lower rungs of the food chain until a mere 15,000 years or so ago?

You're assuming that God is a uniquely personal God and that we are it's chosen creation.

I've always believed in a basic evolutionary process of intelligence (it's in fact evident) and God has no in put into that...A Creator who loves creation and lets evolution take care of the rest.

"A mutation isn't gaining of genetic data. It's an unnatural alteration of what's there. You don't gain chromosomes by mutating the way you're saying."

Mutations can cause a gaining of genetic data, can cause a loss, or can completely scramble it. Most mutations, especially unnatural ones, are harmful. Some natural mutations are beneficial, and rather necessary to future survival (once again, mosquito speciation is a good example of this).

"Nice bullshit artistry. Algorithms are just equations."

And you know what the special atrribute of an algorithm is? An algorithm can arrive at unbelievably rare conclusions in minimal steps. 1 in X doesn't fucking matter as long as X if finite.

"Increase to vertical on the physical plane. Again, good bullshit artistry."

Wasn't an ascent or descent; essentially, shit moves from simple to complex with INTERMEDIATE STEPS.

"Actually the 'hole' in the fossil record is only getting bigger, with the introduction of genetic testing."

No, actually, it's not. Genetic testing has just more firmly shown how closely related we are to chimps.

"Pity it can't grow extra chromosomes."

Extra chromosomes can come about during cellular mitosis though, usually causing a disease, sometimes not. How the fuck do you think Down's Syndrome is caused?

On to Crusader:

"Then how do atheists have any validity in attempting to tear down theists who at least put a notion forward other than a "don't know"?"

Because the theists have no fucking evidence to support their claims.

"What?? Where?? How the hell can you have evidence for a singularity??"

Rate of expansion in a spherical pattern points to a central point where the matter once was, and photographs (http://xinsheng.net/xs/images/2003-2-14-universe_born.gif) support that conclusion.

"Creationism is a logical, scientifically researched piece of reasoning to ultimately a belief. If evidence existed either way then we wouldn't be having this debate. And as there's no evidence behind the scientifically popular (but scientifically inept) atheism, you are in-effect contradicting your argument's sake."

Creationism is anything but science. No evidence supports it, and the only arguement creationists have is from a point of ignorance. There doesn't have to be evidence behind atheism to make it logical; negative rely on positives having no support to be 'true' as negatives cannot be proven due to the simple fact that nothing is impossible, just improbable. Atheism is the default as it's the negative. If no evidence supports a gods existence, the default is to assume no god exists.

"You're assuming that God is a uniquely personal God and that we are it's chosen creation.

I've always believed in a basic evolutionary process of intelligence (it's in fact evident) and God has no in put into that...A Creator who loves creation and lets evolution take care of the rest."

And you're assuming a God exists. Oh shit, guess we're both doing something stupid. Why call the creator a god though? For all you know, the Big Bang, a simple physical event, could be the creator. I seriously think the only reason people would call a creator god is because it overwhelms their senses by making them feel useless. Calling it a god as if it gives you purpose might give you a reason to keep living after how useless you see life really is in the grand scheme of things.

[This message has been edited by Hexadecimal (edited 05-01-2004).]

quote:Extra chromosomes can come about during cellular mitosis though, usually causing a disease, sometimes not. How the fuck do you think Down's Syndrome is caused?

Down syndrome is a birth defect caused by a doubled sperm, so you get an extra gender chromosome (so you become XXY, or XXX, or XYY, although which one causes Down Syndrome I can't remember).

quote:Wasn't an ascent or descent; essentially, shit moves from simple to complex with INTERMEDIATE STEPS.

True, but for humans, none of those steps have been found.

quote:No, actually, it's not. Genetic testing has just more firmly shown how closely related we are to chimps.

0.03% is a couple of billion nucleotides - it's a very big difference. Likewise, it's shown that 2 different 'precursors' to modern man were in no way related.

quote:Atheism is the default as it's the negative. If no evidence supports a gods existence, the default is to assume no god exists.

Actually, atheism is just another religion of itself, which is generally tagged onto the religion of science (where manufactured truths are given to the public as absolute - sound familiar to the middle ages?). The default is actually agnosticism, which says 'I don't know'. Non-existance of proof, isn't proof of non-existance.

quote:Non-existance of proof, isn't proof of non-existance.

Yes it is.

No it isn't actually. I have no proof you exist. You will state quite clearly you do. Who's right? I'm willing to bank that you are, despite my lack of evidence.

"Down syndrome is a birth defect caused by a doubled sperm, so you get an extra gender chromosome (so you become XXY, or XXX, or XYY, although which one causes Down Syndrome I can't remember)."

My point was simply that extra chromosomes can be caused. Down's Sydrome is a poor example, though if you're looking for extra pairs, cellular mitosis and its various fuckups would be better examples.

"True, but for humans, none of those steps have been found."

Haha, yeah, because cro magnons never existed. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

"0.03% is a couple of billion nucleotides - it's a very big difference. Likewise, it's shown that 2 different 'precursors' to modern man were in no way related."

Which of these two precursors would it be? And a few billion nucleotides isn't a very big difference considering how complex the genetic code is, despite being very base in its construction.

"Actually, atheism is just another religion of itself, which is generally tagged onto the religion of science (where manufactured truths are given to the public as absolute - sound familiar to the middle ages?). The default is actually agnosticism, which says 'I don't know'. Non-existance of proof, isn't proof of non-existance."

Atheism is a religion of itself?!? I wonder how Buddhists, Satanists, and Taoists would feel if you suddenly threw all their beliefs out the window simply because they are atheists who choose faith over science. Quite ignorant of you to think atheism means anything other than 'without gods'. Also, science is simply a method of explaining the world around us. Religion explains the beyond and then fucks itself over by attempting to explain the world around us with baseless claims.

And onto logic:

Non existence of evidence supports the negative as much as it can be. True, negatives cannot be proven; but with nothing to show a god does exist, it's logical to assume they don't since something that exists leaves traces. There's such a thing called reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt exists, logically, you should assume the negative or somewhere in between. Hence agnosticism and atheism generally being based on logical conclusions rather than emotional satisfaction.

quote:My point was simply that extra chromosomes can be caused.

Point taken, but how many times would it have to occur to go from single-celled organisms to us? And how incredibly unlikely is that?

quote:Haha, yeah, because cro magnons never existed.

Haha, yeah, because there's nothing that connects us to them.

quote:Which of these two precursors would it be?

Cro magnon and Homo Erectus from memory.

quote:I wonder how Buddhists, Satanists, and Taoists would feel if you suddenly threw all their beliefs out the window simply because they are atheists who choose faith over science.

I seperate them from atheists, because they believe in the supernatural still.

quote:Also, science is simply a method of explaining the world around us.

Which has then turned to worshipping it's own intelligence, and then lords its own views over that of religion (remind you of Christianity in the middle ages? If you're not with us you're demon-possessed and evil? Only now it's, if you don't believe us you're stupid, and maybe mentally defective).

quote:True, negatives cannot be proven; but with nothing to show a god does exist, it's logical to assume they don't since something that exists leaves traces.

One could say our existance proves God.

quote:Hence agnosticism and atheism generally being based on logical conclusions rather than emotional satisfaction.

But one sits on it's ass, thinking itself king of thought (bring your information here that I might view it and laugh), and the other quite happily says 'I don't know, and might not know ever, but then there's the possibility that I might find out one day'.



[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 05-02-2004).]

quote:

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments.

why isnt there a single incomplete eye? some animals eyes are better than others, but all of these eyes are complete . there is no evidence that eyes evolved, it is just theory. and to say that we know it happened because quote:All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today....when none of these have incomplete eyes.

and howcome all animals today are completly perfect for what they are meant to do??? how could so many species peak to total completion and perfection all at once???

quote:

Which has then turned to worshipping it's own intelligence, and then lords its own views over that of religion (remind you of Christianity in the middle ages? If you're not with us you're demon-possessed and evil? Only now it's, if you don't believe us you're stupid, and maybe mentally defective).



quote:

Not a single biologist informed on the issue would deny evolution unless they happened to be psychotic.



http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Thank you Nevermind!

"why isnt there a single incomplete eye? some animals eyes are better than others, but all of these eyes are complete . there is no evidence that eyes evolved, it is just theory. and to say that we know it happened because...

....when none of these have incomplete eyes."

wow nevermind, you sure do have an eye fetish.. lol.. your argument is a common creationist argument.. "what good is a partial eye?"

well, you are thinking of the process in the wrong way.. there is no such thing as a "partial eye" ...you are thinking of an incomplete eye as if it were the same as an incomplete building, a house.. it isn't "half-built" ...that is NOT what partial means.. a partial eye is simply a "low quality" eye.. your argument is ridiculous.. what creature would possibly be capable of functioning with a "partial eye" in the context you are describing it? use some common sense man..

there IS proof of "incomplete" eyes.. hex already stated, that the steps are ALL visible (no pun intended) in creatures alive today.. the lower quality eyes ARE the "partial eyes" that led to the current models.. i repeat, it is ridiculous for you to be crying out about "where are all the half-formed-eyes?" that is NOT what partial means..

in fact, it's been calculated that the evolution from the simplest form of the eye, to the human eye today, could be accomplished in 1829 steps, with each step representing a 1% change.. you see, those are the 2 extremes... you take the simplest eye, and the human eye, the most complex... and everything else falls inbetween.. wow, quite a coincidence that every other form of the eye DOES in fact fall inbetween.. not only that, everything else falls onto a perfect gradient supporting a progression from that simplest eye, to our more complex human eye.. wow, what a coincidence!

"and howcome all animals today are completly perfect for what they are meant to do??? how could so many species peak to total completion and perfection all at once???"

again, you have a problem with SCALE.. put things in perspective nevermind.. if the history of the planet earth was a clock, our pressence would be a half-second long.. when you look at the world around you, you are looking at a photograph.. a snapshot in the history of the planet.. you can't possibly say that every living thing is completely perfect for what it is "meant" to do (every animal has a purpose now?) ...because our existence on this planet forbids it.. before humans, yes... creatures could reach equilibrium (that is what science calls the "perfection" you are talking about) with their environment.. they remain the same for generations, thousands of years, millions of years, until something happens that forces them to adapt to survive.. in certain cases, this meant evolution.. it was a fact that historically, generally 1-2 species became extinct every 1000-10000 years.. however NOW, thanks to the actions of human beings, it's estimated that 75 species become extinct every single day.. how in the hell can you claim every animal is perfect when so many are incapable of adapting to the dramatic changes caused by humans?

like i said many times, evolution is measured in GENERATIONS.. the fact that so many creatures go extinct every single day supports this... they have no time to adapt.. their environments are changed so dramatically, so quickly, that there is no chance for them to evolve.. there just isn't enough time for it to happen..

but it's funny, i would think with so many of his perfect creations dying out everyday, your creator would want to come down like he apparently has so many times before throughout the history of the world and plant a few more perfect creatures on his planet to compensate... why isn't that happening?

well i mean, after all, you say that there is NO way evolution can explain apparent "sudden" evolutionary changes, or the devlopment of new features such as eyes, etc. so, these things must be the work of some creator... i guess he's been on vacation for the last 10000 years or so? he can appear to give primitive creatures single photosensitive cells for eyes, then disappear... but can't pop in real quick and save the 525 species that will go extinct this week? there doesn't seem to be any logic there...

everyone seems to argue the existence of a creator LONG ago, but no one cares that there has been no evidence of a creator of any kind for about as long as humans have had the ability to reason.. um, where did he go? maybe he figures he worked hard for the first 4 billion years making earth a nice place for us to live, so now he'll catch a nap? if there was a creator that has done everything creationists claim, then why did he suddenly just STOP... and seemingly vanish from the picture? life didn't stop, life hasn't slowed down, the planet isn't slowing down, there is no break in the cycle of existence, so why would this creator just... stop? doesn't make any sense to me..

yes, i do have an eye "fetish" :P because i find the basis of an eye evolving just so improbable. lets take darwins process of the eye evolving-originally posted by Dark_Magneto

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>photosensitive cell

like a plants cell???

<LI>aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve

but then why would these appear and STAY if they had no advantage. they dont have a nerve, so they cant communicate any information to the brain. this doesnt back up evolution at all.

<LI>an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells

why would an optic ever grow for no reason? optic nerves are very highly specialised nerves. this nervous system from a eye that doesnt exist-why would this just suddenly appear? you are making it way to simple.

<LI>and covered by translucent skin

so if the first two steps do somehow just happen even if they dont correlate to anything....they also have to grow, at the same time a protective skin layer that lets in light? becuse if you take off the layer over the eye-what will happen? it will disintergrate and not work. so ALL 3 above steps have to happen at the same time, plus the brain also has to develop simultaneously... this is amazingly complicated process, and all 4 things happening simultaneously is so far fetched by chance that i just cant accept it, except by intelligent design.

<LI>- pigment cells forming a small depression.

<LI>-pigment cells forming a deeper depression

why would they do this? they dont have any advantage doing this at all until the lens grows over it?? and what would cause this to happen?? visualise it in your head, it will make more sense of why it is so improbable.

<LI>- the skin over the depression taking a lens shape.

okay, so any optician will tell you that making a set of glasses is very skilled to make a lens. but to get a bioligical lens just like that??? explain how this would happen??

<LI>- muscles allowing the lens to adjust.

so, after all these above steps happen...the body decides according to some mutation to grow muscles allowing a lens to focus?? fuck off :P

</UL>

ALL eyes have all of those features, according to specific needs. some may not be as good as others, but they all have those features-ACCROSS ALL SPECIES-so that means all animals with eyes had to of had one descendant who created an eye.... and all others speices inherrited this

oh, but this is supposed to happen across 1% changes over millenia....so that means the eye developed very quickly, in one species that fathered all species???

just put it into perspective-and think how bloody unlikely this is to of happened. its why darwin said ...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> “To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

</UL>

then he goes on to how it may of happened, but keeping what i pointed out, and his previous statement in mind- its so bloody impossible for this to happen. even darwin admitted it, he just put forward a hypothesis of how it could of come about, but you all take it in as fact, when in fact he said it was absurd in the highest degree.

[This message has been edited by nevermind (edited 05-02-2004).]

Or, perhaps, nevermind, he was merely stating that to the casual observer, it may seem very absurd--until one examines the possibility in depth. It depends on the context, on what he was thinking...too bad he's in his grave now and can't just bloody tell us, eh?

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

how many times would it have to occur to go from single-celled organisms to us? And how incredibly unlikely is that?

First, number of chromosomes isn't particularly relevant.

If you line up human, chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan chromosomes side by side, you can see the similarities between them. In fact, it can be seen that one of the human chromosomes is really just two chimpanzee chromosomes connected together.

It's no measure of "complexity" (whatever that is) either - some plants have hundreds of chromosomes, birds are generally in the mid 70s, etc.



quote:Also, science is simply a method of explaining the world around us.

Which has then turned to worshipping it's own intelligence, and then lords its own views over that of religion

Oh, please. Nobody worships intelligence.

Religious views are invalid unless they're backed up with evidence. I don't care if the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old, the Earth says it's helluva older than that.



quote:(remind you of Christianity in the middle ages? If you're not with us you're demon-possessed and evil? Only now it's, if you don't believe us you're stupid, and maybe mentally defective).

Except that Christianity never had any evidence that people were possessed by demons. Science has a shitload of evidence for things that people refuse to believe because they don't like it.

quote:One could say our existance proves God.

One could say all kinds of things, but nobody is going to listen unless you BACK UP YOUR ASSERTATIONS. Please.

quote:But one sits on it's ass, thinking itself king of thought (bring your information here that I might view it and laugh), and the other quite happily says 'I don't know, and might not know ever, but then there's the possibility that I might find out one day'.

HahahahaHAHAH!

I hope I'm not the only person that sees how easily THE EXACT SAME THING could be said by somebody on the other side of the debate.

And far more fittingly, too.

quote:Originally posted by nevermind:

photosensitive cell

like a plants cell???

I'm no biologist, but I'd say yes, that's a pretty basic example. Without a sophisticated nervous system it's not going to evolve past that though.



quote:aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve

but then why would these appear and STAY if they had no advantage. they dont have a nerve, so they cant communicate any information to the brain. this doesnt back up evolution at all.

I suspect there's a good reason; even if there's not, evolution doesn't exclude changes that neither help nor hurt an organism's chances of reproducing.

quote:you are making it way to simple.

What, you want him to post all 1829 steps?

If you want details you should be reading scientific journals rather than asking some guy on the Web to post them for you.

quote:and covered by translucent skin

so if the first two steps do somehow just happen even if they dont correlate to anything....they also have to grow, at the same time a protective skin layer that lets in light?

At the same time? You seem to have a severe misunderstanding.

This is building upon the steps that already happened.

quote:pigment cells forming a deeper depression

why would they do this? they dont have any advantage doing this at all until the lens grows over it?? and what would cause this to happen?? visualise it in your head, it will make more sense of why it is so improbable.

Gee, I don't know... better protection for the simple optics, perhaps?

quote:- the skin over the depression taking a lens shape.

okay, so any optician will tell you that making a set of glasses is very skilled to make a lens. but to get a bioligical lens just like that???

And anybody will tell you that seeing blurrily (ie. with a poorly shaped lens) is better than not seeing at all.

We're not talking jumps here; the first full eye was probably pretty shitty. It improved in small steps.

quote:- muscles allowing the lens to adjust.

so, after all these above steps happen...the body decides according to some mutation to grow muscles allowing a lens to focus?

You have some SEVERE misconceptions about evolutionary theory.

quote:ALL eyes have all of those features, according to specific needs. some may not be as good as others, but they all have those features-ACCROSS ALL SPECIES-so that means all animals with eyes had to of had one descendant who created an eye.... and all others speices inherrited this

Well, first of all you're forgetting things like plants and microorganisms.

Secondly, most (all?) animals alive today are descended from (something like a) fish at some point. And as we all know, fish have eyes (deep sea and cave varieties excepted). Presumably they've had them for quite some time; presumably animals without eyes aren't going to last long when everybody else has them.

quote:oh, but this is supposed to happen across 1% changes over millenia....so that means the eye developed very quickly, in one species that fathered all species???

It doesn't need to father all species, it just needs to father all the species *that survive*. And who said quickly, Magneto's talking 350k generations.

quote:“To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

What Darwin said is no more relevant than what anybody else says.

If Hitler had come up with evolutionary theory as a joke, it wouldn't matter - the evidence backs it up. That's what it boils down to.

Look at it this way:

Mainstream science (read: everbody except for a handful of kooks that nobody takes seriously anyhow) accepts evolution as fact. One of the following must be true:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Mainstream science is right[/*]

<LI>Mainstream scientists are misinformed[/*]

<LI>Evolutionary theory is a scientific conspiracy[/*]</UL>

1. is obviously unacceptable to you.

If you think 3. is true, then you're pretty much beyond help.

As for 2. please feel free to present any evidence that you think science is missing out on. Seriously, you'll be famous.

quote:First, number of chromosomes isn't particularly relevant.

Actually it is - a single-celled organism tends to have 1 chromosome (but could have more) - we have 46, ergo, there is something that needs to be gained to get from there to here.

quote:If you line up human, chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan chromosomes side by side, you can see the similarities between them.

You want to know why? All genes on the planet are exactly the same - the difference is in the RNA, which determines in what way it's read. You can stick a pig's fat genes into a pine tree, and they'd work.

quote:Except that Christianity never had any evidence that people were possessed by demons. Science has a shitload of evidence for things that people refuse to believe because they don't like it.

Shitload of assumptions. It's not possible to prove anything. Try proving 1+1=2, and if you manage it, I'll listen to you.

quote:I hope I'm not the only person that sees how easily THE EXACT SAME THING could be said by somebody on the other side of the debate.

I'm using atheist's arguments against them - they apply both ways. It's called irony.

quote::by me http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) and covered by translucent skin

so if the first two steps do somehow just happen even if they dont correlate to anything....they also have to grow, at the same time a protective skin layer that lets in light?



quote:

At the same time? You seem to have a severe misunderstanding.

This is building upon the steps that already happened.



this would have to happen at the same time. the mechanics of the eye are very, very delicate. also the eye degrades very quickly if you put a hole in it. so to protect this new basic sight, a protective covering would have to be in place or it would be ravaged if the creature went into the water, or sand blew in it ect... also the suns rays would make it blind without the covering. so to get to the point of an eye, that cant focus,and basically just lets in light and gives basic information back to the brain-

still needs an incredibly sophisticated optic nerve, and brain capacity to match, plus the eye needs the protective skin covering in order to stop it from being damaged as soon as it starts being used.

plus my point is that no animal alive today which has sight, has a partial eye-all eyes in all creatures have a lens, optic nerves, muscles to focus this ect. no animal alive today has a eye with just some light receptive cells and a optic nerve, and maybe at best a translucent skin covering. thats a partial eye, yet ALL eyes have all the features that ours do.

quote:

I suspect there's a good reason; even if there's not, evolution doesn't exclude changes that neither help nor hurt an organism's chances of reproducing.



but then this doesnt back up natural selection at all. this feature would have to stay for thousands of years even though it hasnt helped the creature at all.

quote:

o, after all these above steps happen...the body decides according to some mutation to grow muscles allowing a lens to focus?

-------------

You have some SEVERE misconceptions about evolutionary theory.



no, as far as i know highly specialised muscles and optic nerves dont just start growing for the hell of it and just happen to be perfectly optimised for the job they need. if the muscles in the iris ect are too strong (remembering that this process is random so is very likely to happen) it will severly damage the eye. but the muscles in and around the eye are perfectly balanced against each other.

quote:

oh, but this is supposed to happen across 1% changes over millenia....so that means the eye developed very quickly, in one species that fathered all species???

---------

It doesn't need to father all species, it just needs to father all the species *that survive*. And who said quickly, Magneto's talking 350k generations.



well it did father virtually every species. because except for a few species everything has sight.

and how do you explain varities of species without eyes, like some mammals that live underground to be so similar to other species with eyes, that are descended from the same common ancestor according to evolution-to have no capability for eyes, or no evidence that this ever existed??? but then if there common ancestor didnt have eyes, then that means the whole evolutionary theory of the eye is fucked up.

if they once had the capability of sight-then lost it-there should be some evidence of this capability once being possible.

quote:

2Mainstream scientists are misinformed

...As for 2. please feel free to present any evidence that you think science is missing out on. Seriously, you'll be famous.



whats the point?? nobody pays attention to the people who do. and enough people have. Robert Jastrow, Darwin, Wickramashinge(cant spell his name) fred hoyle, miller ect....

and i have been pointing out things wrong with the theory. none of what ive been saying is my own research-i dont have the facilities in my house to do 100 years of research to prove everyone wrong-im using what the above scientists have said, plus some others that ive forgotten to mention. you are not paying attention to what they have said. the theory of evolution has too many holes in it for me to belive in it.

do you know why people with religious faith can belive in a creationist theory?? they look at the amazing historical truthfulness and detail in the bible, and the prophecies-the book of daniel is a good example-historians have been attempting to explain its amazing prophecys for years, and always have been proven wrong. the still dont know how the prophet daniel told of a unborn king called Cyrus (and actulla naming him and saying where he was from), king of medio persia overthrowing babylon the world power in one night. 200 years later-this exact event happened.

people reason that-the bible has all the hallmarks of being divinley inspired-so why would god lie about how the earth was made?? if you read and understand the bibles record you will be amazed at how science actually backs it up. and this was written 5,000-4,000 years ago???? and still scientists cant prove it wrong??

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

Except that Christianity never had any evidence that people were possessed by demons. Science has a shitload of evidence for things that people refuse to believe because they don't like it.

Shitload of assumptions. It's not possible to prove anything. Try proving 1+1=2, and if you manage it, I'll listen to you.

Of course science never proves anything, I never said it did. This is how inductive logic works. Nothing in the real world is ever proven. If you refuse to believe evolution because of this, you might as well refuse to believe that the Earth moves around the sun.

(1+1=2 has nothing to do with anything, but it can be proven - math is deductive. it's true because of the way we define 1, +, = and 2)

quote:I'm using atheist's arguments against them - they apply both ways. It's called irony.

But they don't apply both ways. Scientists are the people going out and digging up fossils, determining reliable ways to date things, and piecing things together.

Creationists sit there and go "Nuh-uh, I don't believe you", and make up arguments that sound good but are either invalid or unsound (moon dust, impossibility of losing information, Evolutionists are turning our children into Nazis, etc)

Somebody else already said it, but it hasn't been addressed: every single post in this thread as either been attacking evolution or defending it. Where is the evidence FOR Creationism? Even if evolution is false, it doesn't mean your hypothesis is true.

quote:Originally posted by nevermind:

this would have to happen at the same time. the mechanics of the eye are very, very delicate. also the eye degrades very quickly if you put a hole in it. so to protect this new basic sight, a protective covering would have to be in place or it would be ravaged if the creature went into the water, or sand blew in it ect...

A creature that can see until its eyes get "ravaged" is going to have more chance of survival than a creature that can never see.

The fact that an unprotected "eye" is fragile would put evolutionary pressure on the species to grow a protective covering. Where's the problem?

quote:also the suns rays would make it blind without the covering. so to get to the point of an eye, that cant focus,and basically just lets in light and gives basic information back to the brain-

still needs an incredibly sophisticated optic nerve

You're thinking way too big. The first steps towards an eye would be pretty primitive - basically just let in light and give basic information back to the brain.

Why do you need a sophisticated optic nerve? Do I need sophisticated nerves to feel my chair against my back? It's letting in a stimulus and giving basic infomation to my brain.

quote:plus my point is that no animal alive today which has sight, has a partial eye-all eyes in all creatures have a lens, optic nerves, muscles to focus this ect.

Duh. An animal with a full eye is going to push an animal without a full eye to extinction. A partial eye isn't very useful, you said so yourself.

quote:but then this doesnt back up natural selection at all. this feature would have to stay for thousands of years even though it hasnt helped the creature at all.

How does this hurt natural selection? If something has no effect on an organism, why would it disappear?

quote:and how do you explain varities of species without eyes, like some mammals that live underground to be so similar to other species with eyes, that are descended from the same common ancestor according to evolution-to have no capability for eyes, or no evidence that this ever existed???

I don't think that's true. Can you provide a link?

quote:if they once had the capability of sight-then lost it-there should be some evidence of this capability once being possible.

Why shouldn't it be possible? Newts (with eyes) get trapped in a lightless cave. Suddenly their eyes are useless - but worse than that, they take up space or nerves or brain processing power or whatever. They're born with smaller and smaller (or more primitive, whatever) eyes (because it's advantageous to have small eyes, ones with smaller eyes survive) until one day they have no eyes at all.

quote:and i have been pointing out things wrong with the theory. none of what ive been saying is my own research-i dont have the facilities in my house to do 100 years of research to prove everyone wrong-im using what the above scientists have said, plus some others that ive forgotten to mention.

Yes, we know these problems existed. As you mentioned, Darwin pointed out some of the difficulties.

However, Darwin was 150 years ago. We've come quite a distance from there. These objections are ignored by mainstream science because we already have very detailed and believable* models of how these things happened. We have mountains of transitional fossils (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) that show very clearly things that look very much like each other and didn't live at the same time, and a progression of these up to the present day. Do you have a better explanation for why Phenacolophus looks so much like Pilgrimella, while clearly not being the same species and clearly living in a completely different period?

(*: by biologists, as they know far more about what's believable and what's not than you or me)

quote:bible bible bible...if you read and understand the bibles record you will be amazed at how science actually backs it up. and this was written 5,000-4,000 years ago???? and still scientists cant prove it wrong??

The Bible doesn't do shit for me or any of the 4 billion people on this planet who aren't Christians and never will be.

How does science back up the Bible?

(again and again and again - science never proves anything. if you think this is a problem with it, you don't understand it. sounds harsh and dismissive, but it's the truth.)

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Thing is, nobody is sure how the fuck the Big Bang happened.

Because the theists have no fucking evidence to support their claims.

And by your own admission, neither do atheists. When an issue as subjective as this arises, how can one side proclaim to be correct and the other side wrong when both sides know that the whole subject rests on belief.

It's mystifying how people constantly add the words right and wrong on an issue reliant on individual perceptions. Its in debates like these that i give most credit to agnostics.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Rate of expansion in a spherical pattern points to a central point where the matter once was, and photographs support that conclusion.

And this proofs a singularity (please look the word up) and lack of a Creator how?...

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Creationism is anything but science. No evidence supports it, and the only arguement creationists have is from a point of ignorance.

Its from a point absolute rationality.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

There doesn't have to be evidence behind atheism to make it logical;

I know. There doesn't have to be evidence behind anything to make it logical. A person does not have to know the mechanics behind something that still makes perfect sense to them.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

negative rely on positives having no support to be 'true' as negatives cannot be proven due to the simple fact that nothing is impossible, just improbable.

That logic of everything being improbable can equally apply to theists. As for negatives being more logically coherent to unproven positives simply because it's a negative and subsequently, must be human nature to be pessimistic doesn't wash with most people or have any importance to the debate.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Atheism is the default as it's the negative. If no evidence supports a gods existence, the default is to assume no god exists.

If this same absurd law applied to us all, how would we allow ourselves to assume anything to exist outside of our own vision and comprehension?

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

And you're assuming a God exists. Oh shit, guess we're both doing something stupid. Why call the creator a god though? For all you know, the Big Bang, a simple physical event, could be the creator. I seriously think the only reason people would call a creator god is because it overwhelms their senses by making them feel useless. Calling it a god as if it gives you purpose might give you a reason to keep living after how useless you see life really is in the grand scheme of things.

Perhaps you're aware with semiotics? Call it Mary Poppins for all the importance the word carries. If you mean why i apply the common understanding of god to a creator, i do so partly for why you suggested, a personal reason as one tries to find some kind of meaning to anything. What is the point in this life if theres no life to be had after it relating to this life's actions?

Yet ultimately, i belief in a Creator because it makes sense to things that can not be made sense of out of atheism.

Vampire:

"Actually it is - a single-celled organism tends to have 1 chromosome (but could have more) - we have 46, ergo, there is something that needs to be gained to get from there to here."

It is in my memory of shit I've read, that most cingle celled organisms have 6 chromosomes; 3 pairs. And as explained, mitosis can greatly affect the number of present chromosomes if a severe fuck up occurs.

"You want to know why? All genes on the planet are exactly the same - the difference is in the RNA, which determines in what way it's read. You can stick a pig's fat genes into a pine tree, and they'd work."

And RNA mutates (translates, extends, shortens, deletes) just as often as DNA. Once again, usually resulting in still birth, but occasionally having no effect or a positive effect.

"Shitload of assumptions. It's not possible to prove anything. Try proving 1+1=2, and if you manage it, I'll listen to you."

1+1=2 because we have agreed upon what 1, +, =, and 2 mean. They are symbols to reflect the world around us; changing the symbols wouldn't change the world around us though. What one means, added to another one of the same, will always equal what two mean, no matter what you use to represent the one, the addition, the two, and the equality.

"I'm using atheist's arguments against them - they apply both ways. It's called irony."

Not all evolutionists are atheists. I was an evolutionist when I was still a Christian, and completely dismissed the Young Earth crap then; it's entirely retarded with not the slightest bit of evidence to back it up. I have thought that since the day I began looking into the matter, as a Bible-sworn Christian, as a Taoist, as a Buddhist, and as a religion free atheist.

The Crusader:

"And by your own admission, neither do atheists. When an issue as subjective as this arises, how can one side proclaim to be correct and the other side wrong when both sides know that the whole subject rests on belief.

It's mystifying how people constantly add the words right and wrong on an issue reliant on individual perceptions. Its in debates like these that i give most credit to agnostics."

Lack of a solid conclusion doesn't mean no evidence supports something. The Big Bang is a step away from fact; we know there was an event that caused the universe to spread like it has. Whether there was a singularity, or a Big Crunch, or a White Hole that caused the Big Bang, that's still being worked on. As I have said many times before, disagreements as to how something occured does not make the occurence any less factual. Also, there is evidence that hints at a Big Crunch (aka, GRAVITY), evidence that hints at a White Hole spewing the universe out (Black and White Holes ARE singularities, by the way). Thing is, with the rarity of new evidence and discoveries, none of the theories can progress, but they are based on evidence as opposed to creationism, which is based on imagination. Nobody claims to be correct in their thoughts on the Big Bang...people may think one theory is a bit more solid than another, but any scientist would admit that there's no solid conclusion as to how it happened...there's not enough evidence to determine which theory is correct, or if a theory that is correct has been thought of yet.

"And this proofs a singularity (please look the word up) and lack of a Creator how?..."

It doesn't prove a singularity. Singularities prove themselves (Black and White holes). All it does is point to a first singularity, or perhaps an intermediate singularity between a crunch and bang. It just shows that the universe is constantly expanding from a single point; and with the law of gravity, one can give credence to the theory of a singularity.

"Its from a point absolute rationality."

There's no rationale behind it. No evidence, just imagination. First, for creation to even be possible, a god would have to exist. There's no evidence of either. Disproving evolution does not prove creation.

"I know. There doesn't have to be evidence behind anything to make it logical. A person does not have to know the mechanics behind something that still makes perfect sense to them."

Yes there does. If something is a positive, it has to have evidence. I have no evidence that gnomes steal my fucking underwear, but a whole fucking lot of it goes missing. It's logical to conclude that the underwear goes missing somehow; it's illogical to conclude that they are being stolen by gnomes. It's logical to conclude life exists...we have evidence of that; it's illogical to conclude a god created life, as we have no evidence of that.

"That logic of everything being improbable can equally apply to theists. As for negatives being more logically coherent to unproven positives simply because it's a negative and subsequently, must be human nature to be pessimistic doesn't wash with most people or have any importance to the debate."

Are you honestly saying it's pessimistic of me to believe gnomes ARE NOT stealing my underwear when there's no evidence to support the hypothesis that they ARE?

"If this same absurd law applied to us all, how would we allow ourselves to assume anything to exist outside of our own vision and comprehension?"

There's evidence that things exist outside of our vision and comprehension, and we can seek them out any time we wish to and physically experience their existence either with our sight or other senses. We have no evidence of god, and cannot see a god, nor can we physically experience a god's presence.

"Perhaps you're aware with semiotics? Call it Mary Poppins for all the importance the word carries. If you mean why i apply the common understanding of god to a creator, i do so partly for why you suggested, a personal reason as one tries to find some kind of meaning to anything. What is the point in this life if theres no life to be had after it relating to this life's actions?"

I understand that you believe what you do for personal reasons; I once blieved for personal reasons too. That's why I don't think the religous are idiots. Having faith for a personal reason isn't the same as randomly believing every fucking thing around you because you're too stupid to understand it; I understand that. Some questions can't be answered, and for personal reasons, as you said, you are religous; I'm willing to bet finding answers is a large portion of the reasoning ANYONE becomes religous. I respect people looking for answers, even if I think they're looking in the wrong spot. My life's purpose, as an atheist with no belief in reincarnation or any other supernatural? I'd have to say it doesn't really have a purpose other than to experience things. Seems a bit shallow of a life, eh? I know that, and I have my personal reasons, just as you do for having faith, to not put faith into something *I* see as illogical. I'll find my answers my way, and you your's; I'll respect your search, and you respect mine, eh? Respect is a good thing, do we agree on that atleast? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

"Yet ultimately, i belief in a Creator because it makes sense to things that can not be made sense of out of atheism."

Atheism doesn't make sense out of anything, really. I'm glad to see that you do have something that makes sense out of things for you; science makes sense to me, and that's why I like it. Same reason you enjoy faith; understanding. It's my belief that the entire purpose to life is to experience and understand. Whether that means anything when we die, I don't think it does, but I respect you coming to contradictory conclusions, because it's all conjecture anyways. Nobody can know about that because there's no evidence to study. Yeah, I'll take the default "nothing happens", but I still know that anything is possible despite being improbable.

Atheists and theists aren't so different; both are just looking for answers; some through ignorance, some through religion, some through science, some through imagination. Just be glad with what you do or don't find and I don't see any reason to step on your search for answers.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Caucasian:

[B]We live in a universe whose laws absolutely contradict the theory of evolution.

Point #1:

There is no law that lets something evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, then nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

Evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concernd with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain a next step.

I hope you realize that what you have just said contradicts the existance of a god aswell. "Somthing from nothing", that sounds vaguely familiar, so who then created god, by your own logic god cannot simply exist he must have a begining. If god is uncaused, then the same could certainly applied to the existance of the universe-that it is uncaused.

Now let me adress nevermind, life is a process, not a design. It requires an explanation, not an intelligent designer. This explanation is the fact and theories of evolution. It's a fact that enormous changes to life on earth have occured. The theories of evolution explain the process that caused these changes. The evidence for evolution of life is overwhelming and conclusive. If you have any doubts, spend a little time learning the theories of evoltuion, then spend a few hours in any museum of natural history or public library. You will see the evidence. Remember, ignorance of how evolution works is no argument against it. The basic theories of evolution are completely solid, and will continue to be updated as we learn more about the complex history of life. Also your argument that the eye can only be the result of intelligent design is flawed because it did happen by chance, countless little chance events of changes in the gene pool over millions of generations, all controlled by the harsh reality of natural selection and survival of the fittest. While the initial changes in the gene pool were chance events, survival of the fittest is obviously not random. This is the heart of the theory of evolution; indivisuals can pass their genes and characteristics on to their offspring. If a gene makes an individual more likely to have offspring that survive, its offspring that carry that gene will be more likely to have offspring that survive. In effect, species are designed to fit there environment. The designer is the blind process of evolution, however, not some god. NOW HERE'S THE GOOD PART, the faults in the design of the human eye, especially, show its evolutionary origins. When we look at the retina at the back of the eye, we can see that the cell layers are backwards. Light has to travel through seven layers of cells before reaching the light sensing cells. Then the signals go back through these layers to the nerves on the inside surface. A truly intelligent designer could have done a better then the human eye. In fact, evoltuion did a better job with the eyes of octupus and squid, which have the light sensing cells on the surface where they should be.

There is also an underlying problem with the design argument, and most creationists aren't aware of it. By assuming that living things have some sort of metaphysical purpose, they are intrinsically assuming what they want to prove. Purpose is a human concept. In the universe, I maintain, things have no purpose; they just exist. Does an atom have a purpose? Does a rock? Does a star? Does an amoeba, plant or any living thing have a real external purpose? We could say that living things have the purpose of procreating, of creating more life. However we must realize this is just our viewpoint, our interpretation. Rocks, trees, people and the universe have no intrinsic purpose. We can create purpose for ourselves, and that is good, but it's important to understand that purpose is a human construct. Thus when creationists begin there arguments by noting the design and purpose of nature, they are assuming what they want to prove. I could go on, but it would be pointless, as you are deluded fools who will accept nothing as evidence that evolution is indeed fact, and instead try and pick it apart while offering nothing to support your own beliefs.

quote:Posted by Nevermind:

photosensitive cell

like a plants cell???

yes and no... all a photosensitive cell does is sense changes in light.. there are thousands of species alive that are not plants, that possess this type of eye.. what is the problem?

quote:Posted by Nevermind:

aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve

but then why would these appear and STAY if they had no advantage. they dont have a nerve, so they cant communicate any information to the brain. this doesnt back up evolution at all.

who says they have no advantage? a nerve would be useless if the creature didn't have a brain... and there are plenty of species that do not have brains and therefore have no use for nerves.. there are species of star fish with these types of eyes... they do just fine.. again, what is the problem?

quote:Posted by Nevermind:

an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells

why would an optic ever grow for no reason? optic nerves are very highly specialised nerves. this nervous system from a eye that doesnt exist-why would this just suddenly appear? you are making it way to simple.

do you even understand what the concept of evolution is? it wouldn't grow "for no reason" ...in fact, one of the major facets of evolution is natural selection and survival of the fittest.. the nerve would develop in response to dramatic changes in the equilibrium of the species' environment... changes in climate, changes in the earth due to volcanic activity or earthquakes or floods, etc. the reason would be survival..

as someone else said already, the eye doesn't just appear.. these are STEPS.. the eyes change, developing into newer, better eyes.. they don't just appear and no one has ever claimed they did, except creationists..

quote:Posted by Nevermind:

and covered by translucent skin

so if the first two steps do somehow just happen even if they dont correlate to anything....they also have to grow, at the same time a protective skin layer that lets in light? becuse if you take off the layer over the eye-what will happen? it will disintergrate and not work. so ALL 3 above steps have to happen at the same time, plus the brain also has to develop simultaneously... this is amazingly complicated process, and all 4 things happening simultaneously is so far fetched by chance that i just cant accept it, except by intelligent design.

no, you are wrong in your assumption.. these things already exist.. many species, some star fish in particular, have a layer of gel-like material that covers and protects their primitive eye.. there is no such thing as an exposed eye, in any species that i am aware of... why do you keep coming back to that?

you are confused.. you make "partial eye" sound like it's a house or something.. "partial" doesn't mean half-built, or incomplete.. a partial eye is simply a low quality eye.. as the eye evolves, it becomes more specialized depending on the circumstances of the species (ie. cats can see in dark, fish in water, bees and insects with bulb eyes, etc.) ...don't confuse what the evolution side says.. no one has ever tried to say there existed "half-built" or incomplete eyes..

this gel-like layer hardened and developed into a primitive lens when it was forced to, say by changes in the ocean environment where primitive species lived, that drastically altered the amount of light coming in, etc. the ocean has changed dramatically, flooding, receding, etc. for millenia.. the development of a primitive lens by these means is absolutely probable..

quote:Posted by Nevermind:

-pigment cells forming a deeper depression

why would they do this? they dont have any advantage doing this at all until the lens grows over it?? and what would cause this to happen?? visualise it in your head, it will make more sense of why it is so improbable.

refer to my previous statement.. many species of star fish have eyes like this, and they have the protective layer of gel that acts as a lens.. nothing needed to grow because it already existed..

quote:- the skin over the depression taking a lens shape.

okay, so any optician will tell you that making a set of glasses is very skilled to make a lens. but to get a bioligical lens just like that??? explain how this would happen??

it could be nothing more than chance that it developed that way.. why not? your concept of the "shape of a lens" is only what it is because we as humans have come to define what the word "lens" represents, as such.. if the "lens" biologically were any different, i'm sure our understanding of the term would be different, coinciding with the biological representation.. it could be nothing more than the body of the first creature to develop this feature facilitated that particular shape.. why is that so farfetched? logically, it makes perfect sense to me..

quote:Posted by Nevermind:

- muscles allowing the lens to adjust.

so, after all these above steps happen...the body decides according to some mutation to grow muscles allowing a lens to focus?? fuck off :P

again, i get the impression that you are not capable of putting these things in the proper perspective.. all of these steps, could have taken millions of years.. you make it sound like it happened overnight.. no one, especially no supporter of evolution, has ever suggested that these changes were "quick" or anything along those lines.. the time allotted offers more than enough opportunity for muscles to develop..

quote:Posted by Nevermind:

ALL eyes have all of those features, according to specific needs. some may not be as good as others, but they all have those features-ACCROSS ALL SPECIES-so that means all animals with eyes had to of had one descendant who created an eye.... and all others speices inherrited this... ...oh, but this is supposed to happen across 1% changes over millenia....so that means the eye developed very quickly, in one species that fathered all species???

again, yes and no.. YOU are the one oversimplifying things.. you make it seem like evolution describes a line from then to now... no, it is a tree with MANY branches..

when a species evolves, is does NOT mean the ENTIRE species evolves.. evolution describes a process that affects GROUPS of a particular species.. for example, say there is a species spread out into (for the sake of argument) 50 groups all over north america... of course normally it could be more, or the area of distribution more exclusive, etc. but in this example, say over time the east coast floods, and one group of this species is forced to adapt to this new environment, evolving.. well, the west coast, mid-west, south east, etc. are all untouched.. those groups may never change, or may change individually of the rest of the groups, etc.

do you understand? even if you break it down to its BARE MINIMUM... ie. one species can only evolve into one new species (of course this is really simplifying it).. well, then you have two.. those two turn into four.. it multiplies exponentially into infinity, given enough time.. well that is the minimum.. one species could have evolved into 50 new species, 100 new species, 1000 new species, and on and on, given a wide enough distribution and enough time.. well, you catch my drift..

the eye did NOT develop "in one species very quickly" ...it could have developed in many species, progressing as those species branched off into new species.. when evolution occurs, it does not change every example of a particular species.. it changes only the offspring of a particular group of that species..

evolution is perfectly plausible, probable and very well documented and supported by biological and other evidence.. i don't see why it is so hard to accept..

quote:Posted by Nevermind:

then he goes on to how it may of happened, but keeping what i pointed out, and his previous statement in mind- its so bloody impossible for this to happen. even darwin admitted it, he just put forward a hypothesis of how it could of come about, but you all take it in as fact, when in fact he said it was absurd in the highest degree.

that was intended as a rhetorical assertation, setting you up for the paper which it opens.. that ONE sentence is followed by apprx. three pages in which darwin explains his hypothesis (which is now considered fact) for evolution..

quote:Posted by Hexadecimal:

Having faith for a personal reason isn't the same as randomly believing every fucking thing around you because you're too stupid to understand it; I understand that.

incidentally, that is how most religions began... anyone else find it unusual that the bible puts forth a spiritual and/or supernatural explanation for everything that could NOT be explained by science, at that time? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) but that's a whole other debate... so i digress..

quote:Posted by Hexidecimal:

There's no rationale behind it. No evidence, just imagination. First, for creation to even be possible, a god would have to exist. There's no evidence of either.

he is absolutely right.. creationism and god go hand in hand... which is why a debate of this nature is insane.. :P there is nothing that could ever prove the existence of a god, unless god himself came down to earth one day and said "here i am!" ...short of that, i see NO way that the existence of a god could EVER be proven... so, to be in the position of a creationist, is pretty comfy.. you have no responsibility for defending your side of the argument.. you have only the luxury of attacking our side.. you are perpetually on the offensive while evolutionists, who actually HAVE evidence for their argument, are forced to constantly defend themselves.. does this seem a little backwards to anyone else?

[This message has been edited by smsawyer (edited 05-04-2004).]

[This message has been edited by smsawyer (edited 05-04-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

Actually it is - a single-celled organism tends to have 1 chromosome (but could have more) - we have 46, ergo, there is something that needs to be gained to get from there to here.

When an organism reproduces, thing can fuck up. Mutations can occur, there can be a redundant chromosome, etc.

Now if you have a redundant chromosome, and that chromosome mutates, you now have opened the door to an infinite array of potential possibilities.

Most mutations are benign, some are harmful, and some are useful. Organisms with useful mutations will be more successful in surviving than those with harmful ones and their traits shall press on.

This process continues, redundant genes happen, they mutate, etc. and you start getting more information and more chromosomes in what was originally a 1 chromosomed organism.

Most religion is just for pussies who don't want to believe that when you die there is no afterlife

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Every time I hear an atheist explanation for the cause of the big bang, they state (completely unaware of the irony) that it was a singularity and therefore exempt from scientific laws.

So the rather amusing basis to the argument seems to be two of the same thing. Singularity Vs Miracle.

Why don't you look to the Theory of Relativity for an explanation.

quote:Originally posted by nevermind:



<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>A View of Life

“Some extinct trilobites, in fact, developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living arthropod possesses.

</UL>

I thought these were supposed to come from really basic life forms? Eyes are amazingly complex, so how did they suddenly get eyes better than a lot of living things today??? Creationists would argue that God introduced these species to the environment. Again, the evolution theory has no real answer to this. The whole creation theory is just as mysterious, but it does make sense.

Actually compared to many living creatures out eyes are very very flawed. For example when compared to a squid our eyes recieve images upside down and flip them in our brain, Also squids can see three times as far as we can and they live under water in darkness.

Apparently God likes squids and trilobites more than humans.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

there is evidence that hints at a Big Crunch (aka, GRAVITY)

I've heard of current data suggesting that the density of the universe is less than or equal to the critical density, so the universe will expand forever.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

evidence that hints at a White Hole spewing the universe out (Black and White Holes ARE singularities, by the way). Thing is, with the rarity of new evidence and discoveries, none of the theories can progress, but they are based on evidence as opposed to creationism, which is based on imagination.

On my understanding, a singularity means that the laws of physics break down, you seem to be on about a point singularity connected directly with black holes. Anyway, you really need a successful theory of quantum gravity to explain why the universe came out of the Big Bang singularity with a very large entropy, and what happens to the entropy of the Universe if it re-collapses.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

There's no rationale behind it. No evidence, just imagination.

As an advocate of evolution, one must believe the random processed governed by chance started the entire universe (even if its just the first self-replicating molecule.) Therefore, the solar system is of the same origin as is the earth. Therefore humans are a product of this process, thus so is the evolutionist's brain; therefore if all this is true, that the very thoughts of an evolutionists are governed by random processes governed by chance. How then can one trust an evolutionists' rationale?

Incidentally have you ever calculated the odds of 20 (Humans have 20 different types) amino acids forming in the proper sequence the first time to produce one protein molecule? (bear in mind the average human protein is 400 amino acids long.)...I'd like to see somebody place a bet on those odds.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Yes there does. If something is a positive, it has to have evidence. I have no evidence that gnomes steal my fucking underwear, but a whole fucking lot of it goes missing. It's logical to conclude that the underwear goes missing somehow; it's illogical to conclude that they are being stolen by gnomes. It's logical to conclude life exists...we have evidence of that; it's illogical to conclude a god created life, as we have no evidence of that.

Supposing there were certain principles and contradictions leading to anything other than gnomes stealing your underwear. It's a slightly unfair example as there are really only a handful of theories relating to how life, the universe and everything came about.

But what if two thirds of your neighbours believed the gnomes to steal your underwear? (With a fifth of them swearing to have witnessed the gnomes.) What if it was ridiculously improbable for any human being or animal to infiltrate your house, yet your underwear unmistakably was stolen from within your house?? With a highly rationale (hypothesis of gnome laws/principles), world wide consensus of thieving gnomes existing...who/what would you point your finger at for the theft of your underwear?

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

There's evidence that things exist outside of our vision and comprehension, and we can seek them out any time we wish to and physically experience their existence either with our sight or other senses.

There's evidence that craters exist on the moon. But evidently, not for a blind man who can neither see nor sense them.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

nor can we physically experience a god's presence.

There are many sensation-phenomena's that people experience, whom many swear to be the result of God. You can argue that it is psychological, yet what accounts for the sudden switch from sanity to supposed insanity of suddenly feeling and experiencing physical alternate and out of body sensations?

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

I'll respect your search, and you respect mine, eh? Respect is a good thing, do we agree on that atleast?

Yes, we agree on that.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Atheism doesn't make sense out of anything, really. I'm glad to see that you do have something that makes sense out of things for you; science makes sense to me, and that's why I like it. Same reason you enjoy faith; understanding. It's my belief that the entire purpose to life is to experience and understand.

Yes we have different beliefs but with the same basis. Trying to find rationale answers. Then what occurs is an argument over rationality. I respect any person with beliefs backed by intelligence and a thought out process. What i hate is a lack of any deep thought coming from the media driven sheep of today. It seems to me a complete waste of life to develop into a stupid, uneducated stereotype. But that's a another debate.

"Yes we have different beliefs but with the same basis. Trying to find rationale answers. Then what occurs is an argument over rationality. I respect any person with beliefs backed by intelligence and a thought out process. What i hate is a lack of any deep thought coming from the media driven sheep of today. It seems to me a complete waste of life to develop into a stupid, uneducated stereotype. But that's a another debate."

The attempt to not become a "sheep" (I hate that word) is why I try to study the experiments and evidence myself. My views on evolution aren't stupid or uneducated; I try to personally decide whether the scientists who have studied the evidence have come to a logical conclusion. I think a lot of scientists do this as well, bringing about peer reviewed publications of theories. Peer review is essential to making sure something is solid, or at the bare minimum, viable; I honestly think my only problem with religion is that it lacks any sort of critical peer review, but is loaded with confirmation bias.

media drive sheep?

well, creationists... actually religious folks in general, are pretty much the best examples of "sheep" as you put it, that i have ever seen..

and they didn't even need media... they had thousands of years to become sheepi-fied before media came along.. now they use it to rope in new sheep and influence politics.. but yeah, that's a whole other debate...

there is a hell of a lot more evidence FOR evolution than any creationist, here at least, and certainly any that i've seen, either knows about or is willing to admit... do you even comprehend HOW much evidence there actually is? it is FACT in the scientific and biological worlds.. a fact, end of story.. not because there is so much proof against creationism, but because there is NO proof whatsoever, anywhere, of creationism and there IS so much for evolution.. get it? it is fact because of the evidence..

science is not out to destroy religion.. if there was as much evidence for creationism as there is for evolution, then science would acknowledge it, study it, pursue more, etc.. THEN you could debate like we are trying to do here... that would make sense.. there is evidence both ways, so let's debate which is more likely to be the truth?

but that isn't the case... not for creationism.. as far as evidence, there is NONE.. at ALL.. is it just me or should that not be a more significant issue?

quote:When an organism reproduces, thing can fuck up. Mutations can occur, there can be a redundant chromosome, etc.

Now if you have a redundant chromosome, and that chromosome mutates, you now have opened the door to an infinite array of potential possibilities.

But that extra chromosome isn't passed on - down syndrome (as has been mentioned before) tends to be a one-off - their children won't have down syndrome, because sperm is built to carry 1 gender chromosome, and the only reason it happened in the first place, was because of a doubled sperm - a mutant among tadpoles if you will. That mutation however, isn't caused by genes, it's an siamese sperm if you will, which causes it to then carry 2 gender chromosomes.

quote:well, creationists... actually religious folks in general, are pretty much the best examples of "sheep" as you put it, that i have ever seen..

As I've brought up before, most of the population are sheep for science. The entire population is sheep for something. It's all how you look at it.

[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 05-06-2004).]

the crusader and Hexidecimal, probably the two most unilateral thinkers on totse...

learn to read, this topic is creationism vs evolution... not creationism vs big bang theory!

i really didn't want to get involved in this. creationism is wrong because if humans descend from adam and eve about 3500 then no way would their be such a big gene pool today.

thats all the evidance needed, but before creationists argue anymore then they should read up on evolution and genetics, homologous structures and vestigial structures, m,endels laws, junk DNA... and about fossil formation which explains why we can't find missing links.

as for god orchestring the big bang... thats just a simplistic view for someone who doesn't understand statistics

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Therefore humans are a product of this process, thus so is the evolutionist's brain; therefore if all this is true, that the very thoughts of an evolutionists are governed by random processes governed by chance. How then can one trust an evolutionists' rationale?

Same problem occurs with Creationism; how do you know that God supplied us with a working system of logic? If logic's out of the equation, then EVERYTHING is. It's impossible to know anything.

I don't think it's something we need to worry about, though; I can't think of anything created by humans without the application of some form of reason. They all seem to work just fine.

quote:Incidentally have you ever calculated the odds of 20 (Humans have 20 different types) amino acids forming in the proper sequence the first time to produce one protein molecule? (bear in mind the average human protein is 400 amino acids long.)...I'd like to see somebody place a bet on those odds.

The odds don't need to be good, they just need to be better than 1/(number of places in the unverse where life can arise)

And what's all this about proteins? Maybe you should read a bit about abiogenesis theory (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html).

quote:But what if two thirds of your neighbours believed the gnomes to steal your underwear? (With a fifth of them swearing to have witnessed the gnomes.)

Argumentum ad populum. Lots of people believing something isn't evidence that it's true.

Hexadecimal: I don't like the word "sheep" either.

VampireSlaya: Yeah, it's possible for people to believe science, but that's really not a big deal. The whole point of science is to have a verifiable means of determining truth.

At any single point in time, science as a whole is as correct (or more so) as any other consensus.

[This message has been edited by Craftian (edited 05-06-2004).]

Maybe this will help...

"You are not right until proven wrong, you are wrong until proven right" that what some zen buddhist said, the dalai lama I believe. There is proof of evolution, however there is absolutely nothing which supports creationism.

The thing about creationism, is that it needs no evidence to still hold water, because it's too maleable. I'm not a creationist myself actually, I just believe that evolution has holes, which it does.

There is some evidence for evolution, there is some against. Either way, that's the evidence that exists.

It's not that there's just no evidence 'for' creationism; there is evidence that blatantly contradicts it.

I haven't seen any yet.

Read Strata by Terry Pratchett... it'll blow holes through anything you've got (btw, it is a fiction book, but it has a good point).

you haven't seen what? evidence that contradicts creationism? most evolutionary evidence quite explicitly contradicts creationism actually... so not sure what you mean by that..

and i've never seen any evidence against evolution, only missing pieces in the current evolutionary model that have yet to be filled... a lack of evidence, or a missing piece of evidence, etc. doesn't = evidence against anything..

and "it needs no evidence to still hold water" ?? yeah, with religious folks maybe.. not with the scientific world.. something that has no evidence and no support other than faith doesn't "hold any water" if you ask me... that's like me saying "i can lift a sky scraper over my head with one hand because i have faith in my physical ability to do so" ...does that mean i can do it? do you believe me? why not? you have as much evidence that i can lift a skyscraper over my head as you do that creationism is feasible... do you see what i mean?

at some point common sense and logic have to mean something folks... even if you acknowledge the fact that there are holes in the evolution model... no one ever said there wasn't.. ok? that simple fact does NOT change the fact that there IS EVIDENCE that supports evolution and NONE that supports creationism... NOTHING.. IN FACT, there is evidence that CONTRADICTS it... why does that not seem to matter to some people? am i seriously the only one who thinks that that is odd?