i am sorry about my brother’s(marine) boldness, please forgive him. as for evolution, it is a bunch of hogwash, but i can see why people beleive in it so much. it is a topic drilled into little kids from kindergarten, and their vunerable minds absorb it like sponges. so, from this, i understand why some indaviduals continue to believe in evolution.
But, for people to continue accepting evolution, even as adults is hard to believe. just take a peek out the window and say that a greater being did create this magnificent world. come on, the chance that everything happend to evolve into what it is today, is too absurd for me to accept. just the act of trees making oxygen from our carbon dioxide is a miracle(algae makes the majority of our oxygen)! how did the trees know to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen??? there definitely was a greater power behind all of this. ok, enough said, all of you guys will probally just laugh me off. BUT! it is something to ponder over. good luck trying to prove me wrong…. :D
By the way, since “Satan Worshipper” was brought up… I’d like to quote the bible.
Revelation 2:9
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich), and I know blasphemy of them which they say are Jews, and are not, but they are the synagogue of Satan
So you may be able to combine two categories there :)
(not to be anti-Jewish)
very bad quotation… Claiming to be Jews(original meaning) is different from being one…
i am sorry about my brother’s(marine) boldness, please forgive him. as for evolution, it is a bunch of hogwash, but i can see why people beleive in it so much. it is a topic drilled into little kids from kindergarten, and their vunerable minds absorb it like sponges. so, from this, i understand why some indaviduals continue to believe in evolution.
Actually, we have pretty much proven the concept of evolution to be true, or to actually occur. The most prominant example is that of bateical infections and penecillian immunity. By killing off bacteria with only penecillin, the few bacteria that are immune to it survive and reproduce, creating a strain of bacteria, all of which are immune. When penecillin was first discovered, it worked nearly 100% of the time (on thediseases it was supposed to work on), but now it works around 50% of the time, becuase the bacteria have evolved to be immune.
Thsi is also why AIDS patients require three or more types of medications for treatment to be effective. if only one was used, the mutable nature of the virus would allow an immune breed to form and breed. The additional treatments kill all the virus that were immune to the previous ones, preventing full immunity from developing.
generally, we know that creatures do evolve. In fact, it is impossible for them not to evolve, given the process of evolution. We knwo evolution is true, and that species do evolve to better adapt to thier surroundings.
If any of this is wrong, please correct it (CC), I’m basing this off fuzzy memories of Bio class.
Now, none of this proves that humans evolved this way, form ancient monkey-like species, but I have a question for you, TT2. If evolution did not occur, then where did the bones of homo erectus come from? and why dont they exist today?
Or, how come humans today are, on average, several (i think it is 3) inches taller than the humans of the 10th century?
Just asking :D
@marine36:
janus, evolution is 100% idiocy, created by idiots that dont want to beleive that god exists even though the proof is there. evolution is not a theory, its an unconfirmed hypothesis, with absouloutly no proof, i would think someone like you would need proof.
i think that “idiots” is an inappropriate term. Many evolutionists are brillitant scientists who try to make sense of the physical world that they find themselves in with the evidence at hand.
With regards to the “proof” - the Bible is a handy reference, but it does not tell us how God created the world - just that God created it.
Also - although there is no “proof” per se that evolution is the way the world was created, there is a considerable amount of evidence suggesting that there is some validity behind it.
ok, so theyre smart idiots.the bible does say how god created the world, it says that he spoke a word.
consider the unique adaptations certain species of animals have. the scientific explanation, evolution, is completely reasonable. within a species, there will be certain mutations, or abnormalities in the offspring every so often, which of course we can see in humans (midgets), and other animals (three legged dogs). some will be useful abnormalities, others will not. if the one which is useful helps the animal to survive better than the others, then it will breed more, the others will breed less, and eventually the population will “evolve” into the new breed of the animal, better adapted to its enviroment.
There is a distinction in science between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution. What you have described above is micro-evolution; changes within a species, allowing it to adapt to different environments. CY’s example of viruses changing is also micro-evolution, as was Darwin’s observation of the differences of beak size among the birds in the Galapagos islands. No one denies that micro-evolution exists; it can be observed throughout the world, and is an undeniable fact (different breeds of dogs are another example; same species, but with variation). What has never been shown, however, is that enough micro-evolution in the same creature can change that creature into a whole new species. More “advanced” species, such as humans, are not simply repetitive rearrangements of the same simple genetic material of, say, a snail. There is actual new, different, material. So here’s a question; can you give me a single example of a small change within a species (micro-evolution) resulting in entirely new genetic material being added to the species, thus resulting in an entirely new creature?
Actually, we have pretty much proven the concept of evolution to be true, or to actually occur.
What you have proven is the existence of micro-evolution, an irrefutable concept, which is totally removed from macro-evolution (the change of one species into an entirely new species). Everything you said about bacteria and viruses is true, but proves only the existence of micro-evolution. No proof has been brought forward of the existence of macro-evolution, and I challenge you to do so.
If evolution did not occur, then where did the bones of homo erectus come from? and why dont they exist today?
In 1981, Constance Holden wrote in Science magazine “The primary evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.” Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution
Henry Gee, Chief Science Writer for Nature magazine… “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate,” he wrote in 1999, and “the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” ibid
The existence of bones which, at one point an unknown amount of time ago, were a creature which does not exist today, does not prove that we must be the descendants of that creature. What it does prove, however, is that a large amount of time ago a creature which could be either a sort of ape, or a modern human with a degenerate disease, walked the earth.
Or, how come humans today are, on average, several (i think it is 3) inches taller than the humans of the 10th century?
Better eating habits and greater nourishment are the most reasonable explanations (assuming you’re correct). Would you honestly say that evolution has caused people to get taller? Heck, Americans now are taller then Americans fifty years ago were; that doesn’t make us a different species.
we can, in time, do experiments and tests to observe their validity, and decide upon or change our reasons based on the results.
What sorts of experiments can you do to prove that humans evolved from apes about 200,000 years ago?
Nut, i congradulate on that amazing post!
Quote:
Or, how come humans today are, on average, several (i think it is 3) inches taller than the humans of the 10th century?Better eating habits and greater nourishment are the most reasonable explanations (assuming you’re correct). Would you honestly say that evolution has caused people to get taller? Heck, Americans now are taller then Americans fifty years ago were; that doesn’t make us a different species. [unquote]
(sorry, i dont know how do manipulate the quotes) i was just going to explain this, when you already did it…thanks! Anyway, I confirm nut’s facts and find them accurate. So, who is going to counter his facts?
janus, evolution is 100% idiocy, created by idiots that dont want to beleive that god exists even though the proof is there. evolution is not a theory, its an unconfirmed hypothesis, with absouloutly no proof, i would think someone like you would need proof.
are you an idiot? or just completely stupid? there is more proof for evolution than there ever could be for god, even if you believe in god. what proof is there that god exists? NONE! the only thing you have to go on is faith. not proof.
but i can see why people beleive in it so much. it is a topic drilled into little kids from kindergarten, and their vunerable minds absorb it like sponges. so, from this, i understand why some indaviduals continue to believe in evolution.
no, this is what happens with creationism. moron.
the chance that everything happend to evolve into what it is today, is too absurd for me to accept
the chance that their happens to be some omnipotent higher power that created life, the universe and everything is too absurd for me to accept.
there is more proof for evolution than there ever could be for god, even if you believe in god.
You have yet to provide the slightest evidence for the existence of macro-evolution. Please do so before you begin making wild claims like the one above.
did i specify? no, i may have given an example of micro-evolution, but i simply stated more proof for evolution. which i have given an example of. give me an example of proof of god, so as to make my statement false. keep in mind, you claiming that you have been “touched by god” or “talked with him” is not proof unless you can prove it to a non-believer. otherwise, its still just faith, which you have.
there is more proof for evolution than there ever could be for god, even if you believe in god.
You have yet to provide the slightest evidence for the existence of macro-evolution. Please do so before you begin making wild claims like the one above.
Well, i would not say it is a wild claim. We agree that micro-evolution is hapening.
This is the foundation of evolution: Any change has to take place on DNA level, and we see this happening. Thus we have “half the proof” for evolution as a whole at least (from your point of view).
That is not such a wild claim to say we have more proof for evolution (1/2) than for the existance of god (0).
And i think apart from creationists, noone differs evolution into micro and macro. I won’t, and give you some points you might want to think over.
There is a distinction in science between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution…. No one denies that micro-evolution exists; … What has never been shown, however, is that enough micro-evolution in the same creature can change that creature into a whole new species. More “advanced” species, such as humans, are not simply repetitive rearrangements of the same simple genetic material of, say, a snail.
Actually, we pretty much are.
There is exactly one gene for all animals with eyes (or simpler light receptors) be it insects or humans. The pointis that a small change in an arrangement of say two genes (putting them closer together) can massively change the species.
For example, “intelligent design” . The bacterial flagellum is often used as an example of an “irreducible” part. Unfortunately, it is reducible, to the “type III secretory system” (TTSS) ( http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html )
Assume we have a bacterium with a TTSS. To create a bacertium with a flagellum, it just needs a slight rearrangement of the DNA to put the TTSS code closer to code “for the rest” of the flagellum.
You admitted that on this level evolution works, so… evolution can explain massive change in a creature.
There is actual new, different, material.
Not too much. The new material is actually only at points where the mutation takes place on the DNA molecualr level, for example an “falsely” repaired radiation damage of double break of the DNA strand. The main effect is the rearrangement of material, putting genes closer together or taking them away from each other can lead to the turning on/off of that genes, they can combine their effects into a new effect (like described above), etc. etc.
So here’s a question; can you give me a single example of a small change within a species (micro-evolution) resulting in entirely new genetic material being added to the species, thus resulting in an entirely new creature?
The answer is twofold.
1. No.
2. You don’t need that at all. AFAIR the DNA difference between chimps and humans is about 5%. The genetic difference between mice and humans: mice have 14 genes on chromosome 16 that have no counterpart in the human one, the other 700 genes have counterparts.
(http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_02/mouse_053102.shtml), i really advise you to read this article, and you might see why i don’t think that there is a difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution.
What you have proven is the existence of micro-evolution, an irrefutable concept, which is totally removed from macro-evolution (the change of one species into an entirely new species)…. No proof has been brought forward of the existence of macro-evolution, and I challenge you to do so.
Good. My claim: there exists no such difference. We can explain all we need. We can explain how DNA changes, and we know the genetic differences between species. The change mechanisms in the DNA can lead to these differences.
What sorts of experiments can you do to prove that humans evolved from apes about 200,000 years ago?
So… how is that a proof for creationism?
You can’t make up a single experiment that would proof that some god has its hands in there. For evolution, i can at least make a Gedankenexperiment, although it won’t be feasible in reality.
For creationism i can’t. Thus, creationism avoids proof and disproof, and has to be put into the realm of faith.
Poor, poor Janus… come on, im no moron! you know very well that in school you were taught evolution as a young 'un! The gov’t teaches it all the way up till you graduate from college. :roll:
because its right. i dont recall the first time evolution was taught in my school, but its true. meanwhile, creationism is hammered into little kids at a young age in church, teaching them lies and falsities.
seriously, if you still believe in creationism, you are poor and misguided.
Janus, better edit your post and change the second evolution into creationism.
good looking out falk
because its right. i dont recall the first time evolution was taught in my school, but its true. meanwhile, creationism is hammered into little kids at a young age in church, teaching them lies and falsities.
seriously, if you still believe in creationism, you are poor and misguided.
which church? I do not recall being taught any lies or falsities so far. You have yet to demonstrate that these things are lies and falsities. As we have discussed - although there is no “proof” of God or creationism, there is what many might consider “evidence” of both.
This applies to evolution as well - there is some evidence which supports evolution, but no proof of it.
As for being “poor and misguided” - this is an ignorant statement. I know too many brilliant, successful creationists (including award winning, published scientists) for this to be true. What have you done?
I think Janus replied to TT2’s post
@cystic:
As for being “poor and misguided” - this is an ignorant statement. I know too many brilliant, successful creationists (including award winning, published scientists) for this to be true. What have you done?
I think the statement is not more ignorant than TT2’s
as for evolution, it is a bunch of hogwash. … it is a topic drilled into little kids from kindergarten…come on, the chance … is too absurd for me to accept.
although she at least qualified it as her personal opinion only, something that Janus did not in his posts, though he definitly should have done it.
I personally don’t see too much difference between “hogwash” and “poor and misguided”. Just as both of them used the “drilled/hammered” part to accuse the other of the same.
you are right falk, i should have ditched the “hogwash” part. But, Janis, why are you so angry? You just attacked me with salt and vinegar. you are wrong about the “hammering” into little kids going to church. usually if children are going to church, their parents are believers. when the child grows up, he has the choice to believe in ANY religion he/she wants(or no religion at all, like you.).
Here is a thought for everyone to ponder… there are many cultures that have a flood story, am i right? but none of them are like the christian one. it has perfect facts and measurements for a bouyant “ark”. now, the babylonian flood story has faults. the babylonian’s ark measured out to be a perfect square. I wonder how thousands of animals and some people survived in a square ark that ROLLED around in the water. must have been alot of seasick indaviduals! :wink:
Go ahead, find how many races have a flood story, and see which one is the most logical. personally, the bible’s flood saga is the most credible.
you are wrong about the “hammering” into little kids going to church. usually if children are going to church, their parents are believers. when the child grows up, he has the choice to believe in ANY religion he/she wants(or no religion at all, like you.).
Same with evolution ;).
Didn’t you say yourself that kids at younger age have “vulnerable minds” and suck indoctrination up “like a sponge”?
What you brought up above is not hurting Janus line of argument, unless you want your own line of arguement to fail the same way.
although she at least qualified it as her personal opinion only, something that Janus did not in his posts, though he definitly should have done it.
well, perhaps in the interest of being civil, but otherwise, i wouldnt, because i believe i am right and you are wrong (you being creationists), period. but in the future, i can if you think its more polite
But, Janis, why are you so angry? You just attacked me with salt and vinegar
i dont know what post you are reading, but im not angry, im quite calm
