Thread: Questions about evolution.

Hello, new here nice forum, there are many clever people here.
Just so you know i'm not a creationist as my name may throw some people.

God's the greatest scientist because I believe he started the big bang as there is currently no evidence on what started the big bang right?
Oh and please ignore the fact that I didn't spell 'greatest' right in my username.

I'm fairly new to darwinism, but it's really interesting so I would like to ask some questions in here.

Ok to start with my questions and these could be all over the place.

1. I hear a lot that carbon dating a seriously flawed method of determining age and 'apparently' many scientists think this. Is that true? Is it flawed or are these non reputable scientists claiming it's flawed or people with a pro-creationsim agenda? How far back can carbon dating record the age of something? What are other methods of finding something (living) that is millions of years old?

2. Millions of chemical reactions happen so we can see, smell and well so we can sense. How did this happen? We got all this, can't be by accident right?

3. What about our ability to have an orgasm? Why why why?

4. Does 'out of africa' apply to darwinism? Is out of africa correct? Is it flawed?

5. All things living came from one form of life right? Does it mean only one organism in one part of the world, or the same organism but in many different parts at the world all in the same time frame?
If it's the latter, how can this happen, miracle or is there more to it?

6. We descended from apes. The apes we descended from, are they like the apes today in appearance etc.? Why do apes still exist? I'm thinking the apes we descended aren't like the ones today right?

7. Our appendix, it's useless. It is likely that thousands of years from now, humans will be born without an appendix because it has no use anymore?

8. Is evolution accepted as fact by the majority of reputable scientists? Or still a so far infallible theory? I ask that because people say even scientists don't even accept evolution as fact. But then why would it be a scientific theory? Just like theory of gravity? Everyone accpets that because we can observe it ourselves.

Ok that will do for now, I'm sure i'll think of more questions later if you don't mind answering them.

Thanks very much for your time.

Hope my questions were clear enough for you to understand what i'm asking.

EDIT: Oh, and can you recommend some good books to read about evolution for begginners in this field. THank you again.

Originally Posted by TheGreatistScientist=God

1. I hear a lot that carbon dating a seriously flawed method of determining age and 'apparently' many scientists think this. Is that true? Is it flawed or are these non reputable scientists claiming it's flawed or people with a pro-creationsim agenda? How far back can carbon dating record the age of something? What are other methods of finding something (living) that is millions of years old?

It's only flawed when used improperly. Many scientists use it because they know when and how to use it with accuracy. There are also many other types of dating methods that can date with similar accuracy in areas where general carbon-dating methods don't work.

Also, you can wiki most of the stuff you want to know. and google others. Don't be lazy, now.

However here are some links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

2. Millions of chemical reactions happen so we can see, smell and well so we can sense. How did this happen? We got all this, can't be by accident right?

A common mistake among the average-person is to believe evolution goes by pure "accidents" or "chance". The reality is quite the opposite actually, since evolution tends to be more of a directed-process depending on the environment.

To explain, our system does work on a number of complex base-reactions. The deeper one goes, the more complex they appear. What few people fail to comprehend is the sheer massive timespan many of them had to improve. Features such as sight, sound, touch, etc, all have some evolutionary advantage that many species have developed in either similar or different ways depending on their environment.

As for how, there are many explanations as to how specific features (such as the eye) evolved.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_011_01.html

Again, google is your ally.

3. What about our ability to have an orgasm? Why why why?

Now THAT is one you don't hear every day! Ones ability to have an "orgasm" depends on numerous traits (such as genetics). Inevitably, based on the environment of some cells, insects, etc, asexual reproduction probably turned out a very poor method of reproduction (and it is) for species population, it also doesn't do too good when it comes to genetics, as it doesn't diversify them much.
That is basically one shitty way to explain it.

HOwever since I utterly suck at explanations, lets turn to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex

4. Does 'out of africa' apply to darwinism? Is out of africa correct? Is it flawed?

Out of africa is basically recent single-origin hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_...gin_hypothesis

Note how it's a hypothesis. A hypothesis in science is about equal to a guess.

For my personal opinion: It's incorrect, is flawed, and doesn't really apply to evolution.

Note: Darwinism is an old theory. http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=darwinism&gwp=13

You should refer to evolution as evolution, not a theory created by the original writer to describe observable events. Since they aren't exactly accurate.

5. All things living came from one form of life right? Does it mean only one organism in one part of the world, or the same organism but in many different parts at the world all in the same time frame?
If it's the latter, how can this happen, miracle or is there more to it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#History_of_life

6. We descended from apes. The apes we descended from, are they like the apes today in appearance etc.? Why do apes still exist? I'm thinking the apes we descended aren't like the ones today right?

This is one of THEE MOST COMMON misunderstandings of evolution known to man. I think the only people that still teach it are those in church, since I've heard of no public school teaching this. Here's a tip: Anything about evolution you hear from a church, church website, etc, is likely to be false. Go to scientific websites if you want a real explanation.

anyway, we did not come from apes. It's merely suggested we have a common ancestor, and evolved differently (as many species have).

7. Our appendix, it's useless. It is likely that thousands of years from now, humans will be born without an appendix because it has no use anymore?

er...not exactly. It's still hotly disputed, since it's function is a complex thing to attempt to figure out. Especially since it isn't obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermifo...endix#Function

However, the function has no citations, so lets turn to answers.com:
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?...ppendix&gwp=13

a little different answer. Regardless, many people used to say tonsils (sp?) were worthless. Inevitably their function was identified, shouldn't be long for this part of human anatomy either. Just because we don't know what it does, doesn't mean it does nothing.

8. Is evolution accepted as fact by the majority of reputable scientists? Or still a so far infallible theory? I ask that because people say even scientists don't even accept evolution as fact. But then why would it be a scientific theory? Just like theory of gravity? Everyone accpets that because we can observe it ourselves.

Yes, it is accepted as fact by the predominant amount of reputable scientists. That's because it's a fact evolution happens. HOW it happens, is the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

However that fact is largely irrelevant. It's an Appeal to Authority fallacy, and should not be used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_Authority

Thank you very much Jeremyhfht. :-D

I know I shouldn't be lazy and use google, i'm sure you guys get many threads asking the same questions.

I just prefer to communicate with others in real life or through a forum, where I can get a direct repsonse/answer to the questions I ask (in othe words, lazy haha). Just feeling.

You've given me plenty to digest, I will look for the other answers to my questions with google first, if failing i'll come back and ask here.
THanks again.

Post deleted. There's no need to respond or quote spam. Just PM me, and I'll remove it. - HomoUniversalis

Jesus FUCK this forum needs a god damn *ACTIVE* moderator. I've reported this guy to like two or three of them like three+ days ago and so far nothing! Grah!

Post deleted. There's no need to respond or quote spam. Just PM me, and I'll remove it. - HomoUniversalis

Woah... Did I really write that? Must have been drunk.

Now go away spammer... Please :-D

As jeremyhfht wrote evolution is accepted by the majority of scientists and is observable in many ways, one famous study showed the evolution of mans lower limbs from slightly forward facing joints to almost straight down in the pelvis of modern man showing the evolution from bent over walking to stooped over walking to upright as we are now.


Also look at hereditary diseases that show that this information is passed from generation to generation showing that faults as well as strengths can be passed on, and if these strenghts are immunity to certain illnesses that wipe out others(as in the black death) then that naturally selects a certain group


From what i understand it, one misconception about evolution is that we descended from apes, we didn't we descended from a common ancestor, one suggestion is that this split was made by mountain ranges causing one group to be isolated in one type of habitat and another split of into a wider more varied habitat

umm i have enjoyed reading the exchange but i want to know one thing.
how can it be for sure that we evuloted from apes? how is it so that they are still existing? also these apes were in the world all around at the same time, so how come that civilization has reached half of the world, leaving the other half uncivilized? surely, if we evuloted from apes than we have to be civilized at same time? 0.k. 2 or 3 or even a decades difference will do, but how to explain a century of difference?

I am also interested in the answer and like to see what you make of this
oh it was a nice joke you people exhanged, you know!!!!

Originally Posted by Priya

umm i have enjoyed reading the exchange but i want to know one thing.
how can it be for sure that we evuloted from apes?

Fossil records of intermediary hominoids, plus DNA simularities(over 99% identical) to such apes as chimps confirms what Darwin said before even methods of confirmation were around.

how is it so that they are still existing?

Their species didn't encounter environmental changes to facilitate the necessity to adapt.

also these apes were in the world all around at the same time, so how come that civilization has reached half of the world, leaving the other half uncivilized? surely, if we evuloted from apes than we have to be civilized at same time? 0.k. 2 or 3 or even a decades difference will do, but how to explain a century of difference?

I dont know what youre driving at here but a century of difference in evolutionary terms is most certainly negligible. In fact if two or more isolated groups achieved an identical trait within a century that would be amazing coincidence.

Originally Posted by Priya

umm i have enjoyed reading the exchange but i want to know one thing.
how can it be for sure that we evuloted from apes? how is it so that they are still existing? also these apes were in the world all around at the same time, so how come that civilization has reached half of the world, leaving the other half uncivilized? surely, if we evuloted from apes than we have to be civilized at same time? 0.k. 2 or 3 or even a decades difference will do, but how to explain a century of difference?

I am also interested in the answer and like to see what you make of this
oh it was a nice joke you people exhanged, you know!!!!

You apparently didn't read anything. I, and the other poster, refuted the ape claim. And if you reread his statement carefully, he was talking about the common ancestor (NOT a modern day ape!). Furthermore, that's just a quick and dirty explanation, and one that I haven't heard before.

I request sources. >.>

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by Priya

umm i have enjoyed reading the exchange but i want to know one thing.
how can it be for sure that we evuloted from apes? how is it so that they are still existing? also these apes were in the world all around at the same time, so how come that civilization has reached half of the world, leaving the other half uncivilized? surely, if we evuloted from apes than we have to be civilized at same time? 0.k. 2 or 3 or even a decades difference will do, but how to explain a century of difference?

I am also interested in the answer and like to see what you make of this
oh it was a nice joke you people exhanged, you know!!!!

You apparently didn't read anything. I, and the other poster, refuted the ape claim. And if you reread his statement carefully, he was talking about the common ancestor (NOT a modern day ape!). Furthermore, that's just a quick and dirty explanation, and one that I haven't heard before.

I request sources. >.>

exactly, read other peoples posts too. There is also the support of the facts that the apes have also evolved from the common ancestors too and todays apes are different to that common ancestor. Jeremyhfht Are you requests sources from me on the pelvis statement? I got it from "the origin of humankind by richard leakey" if thats any help?


Theres always this misconception that all animals are on a evolutionary conveyor belt that leads to us, the ultimate of evolution. but its not like that

sorry, I have reread it and I now realise the question that always left me intrigued has been answered and I was reading it with half of my attention!!! unthinkablily fool you have made me out of me.. I think it can be classified that I am a ancestor of the apes though I dont know, is it modern or the old evultionary ape !!(hey can it be true?)

Originally Posted by Priya

I think it can be classified that I am a ancestor of the apes though I dont know, is it modern or the old evultionary ape !!(hey can it be true?)

There is no evidence whatso ever that apes evolved from hominoids(I think that is what you are suggesting). Appart from the fact that is incredibally unlikely that we would have gone from a technological species(making our environment adapt to us) to mere tree swingers. Humans have not been around even in the same ballpark as long as enough time for such an occurence. Are you on drugs or just the bible?

this is also an excellent site for the evolution argument

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Originally Posted by Priya

sorry, I have reread it and I now realise the question that always left me intrigued has been answered and I was reading it with half of my attention!!! unthinkablily fool you have made me out of me.. I think it can be classified that I am a ancestor of the apes though I dont know, is it modern or the old evultionary ape !!(hey can it be true?)

Sorry I may have mistook what you were trying to say. I thought for sure you were saying that lesser primates evolved from humans.
No you are not a fool to ask questions.

yes i agree with you, captaincaveman and tell you what I am enjoying this exchange .. it fun to debate or prove ones self.. and in doing so we learn so many things,.dont you agree? but now I tell you I am fully concerntrating..

Originally Posted by Priya

yes i agree with you, captaincaveman and tell you what I am enjoying this exchange .. it fun to debate or prove ones self.. and in doing so we learn so many things,.dont you agree? but now I tell you I am fully concerntrating..

its really healthy to question and debate things, it also refreshes things in my mind that id forgotten and make me re-read things to clarify. that also means i pick up other bits of info when im re-researching

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Post deleted. There's no need to respond or quote spam. Just PM me, and I'll remove it. - HomoUniversalis

Jesus FUCK this forum needs a god damn *ACTIVE* moderator. I've reported this guy to like two or three of them like three+ days ago and so far nothing! Grah!

You can email me at HomoUniversalis@Gmail.com next occasion. Just include the username, and I will deal with it.

Mr U

Now let me see

1. I hear a lot that carbon dating a seriously flawed method of determining age and 'apparently' many scientists think this. Is that true? Is it flawed or are these non reputable scientists claiming it's flawed or people with a pro-creationsim agenda? How far back can carbon dating record the age of something? What are other methods of finding something (living) that is millions of years old?
====================================
Carbon dating has SOME flaws and a lot more limits. It's only good for datng deceased life form that died within the last hundred thousand years or so.

But there are other geological clocks. Mostly other forms of radioisotope decay. (Iridium I think but don't quote me) and, when a lava flow cools this form of decay can take hundreds of millions of years. And can be measued to a few million years.

When sedimentiary rocks are laid down on one another the order of the layers mean that the bottom layers are older than the top ones. Even if techtonic folds have turned the layers upside down the fossilised borrows of things like worms or eels, still determin which way is up.

And , most reputable geologists wont' try to calculate the age of a rock untill they have at least two, or sometimes, three of the various indicators, in agreement with one another.
=====================================

2. Millions of chemical reactions happen so we can see, smell and well so we can sense. How did this happen? We got all this, can't be by accident right?
==========================================
The original sense is the sense of touch. Thats a chemical reaction in the nerves and some of the more primitive organisms dont' actually have that sense.
All of the other senses developed from that. Eg Sight. Even blindfolded our skins are still sufficenlty light/heat sensitive to tell where a light soiurce is coming from. To find heat in the cold and to avoid fire.
If a patch of extremely light sensitive skin cells is located in a cup like depression in the body it's ability to detect direction is increased, and it can even detect predators or prey. Flatworms eyes?? are still like this, after millions of years.

If the cup evoloves to a shape more like a vase with a narrow opwning then that is almost the same design as the pinhole/shoebox camera that you made in science class. Once again millions of years and millions of generations of evoloution. And the chambered nautalis (squid like creature) has such eyes. Retinia, pinhole, but no lens. And, even though it's terribl sight compared tohuman sight it's still vastly superiour to blindness and gives the species a better chance of survival.

An interesting twist. On an intergalatic scale the human race is as good as blind. We cant see through rocks, we can only see radar, radio, TV or UVlight through out gadgets, not through our eyes.
So humans still have their limits.
==================================

3. What about our ability to have an orgasm? Why why why?
==================================
Increases our tendancy to breed
=====================================

4. Does 'out of africa' apply to darwinism? Is out of africa correct? Is it flawed?

5. All things living came from one form of life right? Does it mean only one organism in one part of the world, or the same organism but in many different parts at the world all in the same time frame?
If it's the latter, how can this happen, miracle or is there more to it?
==================================
The latest research is that we all decended from one solitary cell in the primeiveal slime.
But it's flimsy research at best simply because it's researching life at a celualr level three billion years ago..

A second argument goes that the conditions that created life created billions of cells all over the world. But only those fit to survived and reproduce did so. And the environment dictated that only cells, that had evolved a specific, design, identical to one another survived.
==================================

6. We descended from apes. The apes we descended from, are they like the apes today in appearance etc.? Why do apes still exist? I'm thinking the apes we descended aren't like the ones today right?
==================================
Not quite. We, AND apes descended from the original ape man. It's not a given that the new species will superseed the misssing link. There are hundreds of living fossills still alive. The horsehoe crab is not a crap at all but a Triobite. Australias own platypus is the misssing link between repties and mammals. It hasn't changed much since before dinosaours evolved.
The mud skipper was figured to be the link between fish and anphibians but the latest thinking is that smphibians actuallly evlolved as water breathers first and then made landfall rather than any air breathing fish.
=============================

7. Our appendix, it's useless. It is likely that thousands of years from now, humans will be born without an appendix because it has no use anymore?
=============================
Only if it becomes such a nuisance that it kills large numbers of children before they can breed. Medical science is cheating evoloution by saving these kids.
==================================

8. Is evolution accepted as fact by the majority of reputable scientists? Or still a so far infallible theory? I ask that because people say even scientists don't even accept evolution as fact. But then why would it be a scientific theory? Just like theory of gravity? Everyone accpets that because we can observe it ourselves.
==================================
Most reputable scientists accept the basics as fact. But certainly not the final details.

One analogy is a jigsaw puzzle, of a painting of Charles Darwin. You only need a few pieces to say that the jigsaw is of a man. You need many more piecies to say if it's a jigsaw of Charles Darwin, or Karl Marx who lived in London at the same time and dressed and wore his hair in a similar manner. And to need more pieceis still, although not every last piece, to get a positive identification.

"1. I hear a lot that carbon dating a seriously flawed method of determining age and 'apparently' many scientists think this. Is that true? Is it flawed or are these non reputable scientists claiming it's flawed or people with a pro-creationsim agenda? How far back can carbon dating record the age of something? What are other methods of finding something (living) that is millions of years old?"

Well, first, you may need to define many. Many is not a majority, or even a sizable amount. But science is not an appeal to the majority, or authority. So perhaps they are just mislead, or in the case of pushing a pro-creationist agenda they are misleading. The only flaw I had ever heard a creationist touting, was that the Industrial Revolution had increased the amount of carbon14 into our atmosphere. That is not a flaw though, just an event that needs to be taken into account. Certainly, that we have objects and people of a known time-period (from Egypt for example, where we know fairly well the dates given to a pharaoh's death say), makes it rather easy to adjust.

In any case, no one is trying to date the age of the earth with radio-carbon dating.
Other types of dating include:
K-AR (Potasium-Argon) dating

There are also two or three ways we date using Ur (Uranium), and then it's final stable product of Pb (lead)
--
One of the 'problems' that creationists use to point out that all methods of this sort of dating must face, is that they do not account for the possibility of global catastrophic events. The only one I assume they mean is Noah's flood. Certainly there is no need to account for this event, because there is no doubt that it did not occur.

Also, I don't think a single of your questions would be left unanswered if you took on the task of reading a good book on evolutionary biology. I am currently reading Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life by Daniel C. Dennett. He isn't a biologist, a philosopher rather, but he has a good grasp of evolution, and it is a well-written book.

Also, one of Professor Dawkin's books may be good to read; The Selfish Gene, or perhaps The Ancestor's Tale. There are an almost incalculable amount of books on the subject out there, lol

If you do happen to be a Christian, or a god-believer, I would suggest that you not worship what Bonhoeffer called a "god of the gaps." Science will fill in the gaps if we have not already, and there will be no place for it [god]. For example, I believe you said that we don't know what made the big bang "happen," and so it must be God, the greatest scientist. Firstly, if you do understand evolution, then you realize that complexity comes after simplicity. So for the greatest scientist, a very complex one it must be, to have predated even the simplest of things is counter-intuitive. Secondly, "lack of evidence in one area, is not evidence for another," so to say that simply because we, at the moment, don't happen to know what caused the Big Bang to "happen," does not mean that it must have been God, nor that God is even likely; Nor does the introduction of god supply the answer to the question "what caused this?" It may answer what caused the Big Bang, but only leads us into an infinite regression of "What caused the cause of this?"

Scientificly speaking we are aware how certain things work, orgasms etc. But we have no idea how they came about. Evolution has been proven impossible.

So to believe that a god or grand scientist created all things with laws and a purpose is still the most sensible view of how all things are here.

Carbon dating is a good source of dating up to 4000 years ago. Anything further than that is very innacurate and open to debate. Some say 60000 years but that is debatable.

Certainly any further than 60000 years is not accurate enough to use in sciencetific evidence. So be carefull about what evolutionists may tell you.

Originally Posted by Truth1010

Scientificly speaking we are aware how certain things work, orgasms etc. But we have no idea how they came about. Evolution has been proven impossible.

If it were possible for me to get you banned due to extreme ignorance to facts, I would jump at the chance. WE have proven, time and again through all debates on this forum, that evolution has not been proven impossible (in fact to keeps getting more evidence to support it).

Carbon dating is a good source of dating up to 4000 years ago. Anything further than that is very innacurate and open to debate. Some say 60000 years but that is debatable.

Where do you get this bullshit? "debatable?" It's a scientific FACT! Under normal (or I should say appropriate) conditions it's perfectly accurate until, as wiki shows (with a source) 60,000 years. However, Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years, not 4000.

The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years. This limit is encountered when the radioactivity of the residual 14C in a sample is too low to be distinguished from the background radiation.

Yay, more quotes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Certainly any further than 60000 years is not accurate enough to use in sciencetific evidence. So be carefull about what evolutionists may tell you.

Umm...that's why they use other accurate dating methods. Y'know, the ones JW's never end up learning about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_methods

darwins finches evolving 2006

http://www.livescience.com/animalwor...win_finch.html

Originally Posted by Truth1010

Scientificly speaking we are aware how certain things work, orgasms etc. But we have no idea how they came about. Evolution has been proven impossible.

So to believe that a god or grand scientist created all things with laws and a purpose is still the most sensible view of how all things are here.

Carbon dating is a good source of dating up to 4000 years ago. Anything further than that is very innacurate and open to debate. Some say 60000 years but that is debatable.

Certainly any further than 60000 years is not accurate enough to use in sciencetific evidence. So be carefull about what evolutionists may tell you.

That's the dumbest thing I've read since your previous post. Evolution is a fact, there is plenty of evidence supporting it, even today. It is a fact that since man moved out onto the Tibetan plateau those living there have evolved a higher lung capacity than people living at sea level, this is also true in other parts of the world, it clearly show's mans ability to evolve into a creature better suited to living at higher altitude. The second component of evolution, ie mutation is, I grant you, more open to debate however are even an examples of this. In Japan, there is a type of crab that has 'mutated' over the last 800 years, first there were a few of them but today they are the majority species in their environment. Selective breeding of certain canine characteristics has also given every type of dog - all descendant from the wolf, and all 'encouraged by man' just by choosing which dogs were allowed to mate.

also what about the three major redundancys in the human body. The well known appendix and sacrum and the less known palmaris longus, which is a redundant muscle in the forearm

the palmaris longus muscle. This is a muscle in your forearm. Actually, it's a muscle that 90% of people have in both forearms. It's a flexor muscle for the hand. It lies just under the flexor carpi radialis. Bunch your hand up into a fist. Now flex your hand (this means that, palm up, bring your hand towards you). How many tendons do you see? If you see just one, that's the flexor carpi radialis. If you see two, that's the fcr and the palmaris longus. We don't need it. It's a weak muscle that is not useful. Less and less people have it every generation. Like I said, 10% of the population have it missing in one or both arms.

Caveman wrote...

"Less and less people have it every generation."

Show me numbers to highlight how less and less people have it.


Apart from constently making points that are not related to evolution and claiming they are i feel there is little way for you to be more ignorant.

Variety within a species is NOT evolution.

Adaption is NOT evolution.

Evolution is the claimed process of how living creatures came about and how they produce new separate species.

Evolution is a process. Show me evidence of this process.

The finch story is vague, ive heard these stories before so youll have to respect my reluctance to swallow everything im told. Evolutionists were the people who nailed togetehr a human skull and an ape skull and tried to pass it off as an ape-man.

Jeremy and co...

Until you show me the species gap being crossed you simply have nothing. Claiming the earth is flat because your table at home is flat is not evidence of the earth being flat it is evidence of your table being flat.

Please stop trying to join two things together which have no relationship and claiming it as evidence.

every species of dog has been bred into separate species by man, every dog, from the little chihuahua to the grand danois is bred from a single wolf-like canine.
is that to you a sign of adaption as well? humans adapting dogs to their needs and uses?
how about the cow, the sheep, the chicken?
all of these creatures has had a decrease in brain capacity, and increase in meat, wool and milk-producing capacity. since they didn't have to defend themselves anymore their brains decreased in size, and all the above mentioned features increased.

but then again, this isn't an example of evolution you say, this is just
adaption again!

lo and behold, how AM i going to solve this conundrum?

take this: evolution is about survival of the fittest.
the fittest is the ones that adapt.

lets see how sea otters could have adapted themselves into seals, and then into whales.
lets say theres a tribe of otters, swimming around, doing nothing.
food resources is pretty tight, and theres not a lot of energy for the otters to grow big.
a few otters decide to swim longer away from the other otters, in search of food.
they find a food resource a lot bigger than the other otters have.
as they eat and breed, adaption starts playing its part. or natural selection as its also called on a grander scale.
the larger specimen of otters can catch more food, and because theres a lot of it, they can sustain their size. if there was very little food, the otters could not grow to such a size, and they would remain regular otters.
lets say that in this case, speed and agility in water are the preferred
adaption to catch more fish. the larger you are, usually the more fish you can catch, and the less other predators can eat you.
after maybe 2-3000 years the size has increased, maybe 1/3, depending how often the otters breed. fast breeders are fast adapters.
their feet might have got more swimming fin features. making them faster swimmers, they have a bit more fat in their skin, they got larger lungs to keep their breath held for longer, and duck deeper down.
after 50.000 years the feet might have reduced significantly in size, and are only 2 minor stumps on the rear, with fins. size has still increased due to the abundance of food, and because of the constant adaption to find new food resources.
there might be some "residue" animals who wandered off, and decided to choose other hunting grounds, and found other sources of food, and henceforth adapted differently.
maybe after 100.000 years. the otters that formed off from the small otter tribe has become a seal-like creature, while the other otters contempt with their place in life, was perfectly adapted for the environment they lived in.
meanwhile our sea-faring advanced otters are still growing,
due to the vast food supplies of the sea.

and after maybe 3-4 million years of adaption, and increasing size, as well as increasing diet size, what once originated from a small otter tribe, has become something that resembles maybe a spermwhale.

and if that still doesn't convince you, think about this:
snakes have 2 bony outcrops at either side of its colon.
what once was legs.
and consider this also, theres a snake-like creature that is actually a lizard living in norway, called stålorm.

now if you want more evidence, just keep telling me i'm not telling you the truth. and i'll continue to dig up evidence, or at least things that more than strongly suggest that evolution has been on the trail.

Adaption is NOT evolution

yes it is. dictionary definitions of adaption

Biology.
a. any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.
b. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.
c. the ability of a species to survive in a particular ecological niche, esp. because of alterations of form or behavior brought about through natural selection.

dictionary definiton of evolution

Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

can you see the links between them

*cough*grossignorance*coughcough*. As captaincaveman said, yes evolution is "adaptation." Had you bothered to read the mountains of evidence we continually provide, perhaps you would have a basic grasp of biology to argue with.

Deja wrote...

lets say theres a tribe of otters,

Evolutionists do this often. You start by claiming your theory is based on good science, then you give me not scienctific evidence of the otters becmg seals, but your opinion of how they became seals.

I hope you understand i only accept evidence and not someones opinion.

Evolution - the process of how life got here.

Evolution isnt - Adaption within a species. New creatures forming unaturally due to human breeding techniques.[ this is of course unatural slection]

Please i keep asking ....

Show me evidence of a creature evolving. The interbreeding is variety and often unatural. Its does NOT take millions of years and is done in one generation. The result is another species of, or a variety of.

There are many variety of dog, they are all dogs.

A problem we are having here is a common problem..defining species.

"The species concept has been one of the hardest things for scientists
to define, because there are so many exceptions!"

However ALL interbreeding is, is interbreeding. It isnt slow mutations over millions of years which is what you keep screaming evolution is to me. Please be consistent.

Interbreeding is at one with the bibles view." All creatures reproduce their own kind with great variety."

At some stage in life there were no creatures. So bridge this gap for me. How from no creatures did creatures arrive. I belive god created life over many unspecified years. Science does not dissprove this. Science however has no evidence that life evolved and neither do you evolutionists.

The above statement is true i only hope youll accept it. Ive less problems with you believing in evolution because you hate god or because you just like the sound of it. Rather than pretending that evolution has some scientific basis. Which it clearly doesnt.

Evolution isnt - Adaption within a species

Yes it is. your missing the point. look at certain species and you will see remenance of what went before them.

with humans its the tail bone, appendix and muscles(as been pointed out)

snakes its the remanance of legs etc

look at dolphins and whales





why the need for seperate "finger bones" and the complexity of the "hands", none of these are needed for the fins to work

Originally Posted by Truth1010

Evolutionists do this often. You start by claiming your theory is based on good science, then you give me not scienctific evidence of the otters becmg seals, but your opinion of how they became seals.

I love how a creationist quotes out of context, doesn't prove what he's actually saying wrong, and makes a fool out of himself in the process.

Evolution isnt - Adaption within a species. New creatures forming unaturally due to human breeding techniques.[ this is of course unatural slection]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Evolution. Is. Adaptation. As we have explained numerous times. To evolve, you basically have to adapt to environments by whatever means probable.

Show me evidence of a creature evolving. The interbreeding is variety and often unatural. Its does NOT take millions of years and is done in one generation. The result is another species of, or a variety of.

You ask a stupid question (I see no question mark though), you get a simple reply:

Organisms. Viruses, bacteria, etc, continually evolve to adapt to improving defenses. The stronger the defenses a human has, or any other creature, the more they have to evolve in order to survive. otherwise nobody would ever get sick.
This, in effect, is microevolution (you would know the difference if you actually had studied it).

There are many variety of dog, they are all dogs.

According to the definition of species (ergo, that which can interbreed) some dogs are a new species. Some smaller type of dogs cannot impregnate larger ones even through artificial insemination.

however, this is an "unnatural" even brought about by selective breeding (eugenics). But, technically, your statement is wrong. They have the charactaristics of dogs, but they cannot breed with all dogs, therefore they are a "separate" species to an extent.

Interbreeding is at one with the bibles view." All creatures reproduce their own kind with great variety."

Then by that definition, a dog isn't a dog.

At some stage in life there were no creatures. So bridge this gap for me. How from no creatures did creatures arrive. I belive god created life over many unspecified years. Science does not dissprove this. Science however has no evidence that life evolved and neither do you evolutionists.

Once again, this is an evolution no brainer. But this is where theories begin, not 100% facts (science is based on theories. Remember that).

The most common is that simple proteins form out fo a mix of chemicals that cause the proper conditions for the most basic life forms. The single cell organism is just that, a simple cell composed of few instructions about it's environment.

Technically, however, these chemicals aren't "non-life." Especially since there is a problem with defining "non-life" to begin with. In any case, it basically causes a simple reaction when conditions are present that bring about (quite slowly I might add) organisms. A similar case can be shown on mars, as there are some types of simplistic organisms there (last I heard anyway).

And yes, as all links thus far has proven, biology does have evidence for evolution.

The above statement is true i only hope youll accept it. Ive less problems with you believing in evolution because you hate god or because you just like the sound of it. Rather than pretending that evolution has some scientific basis. Which it clearly doesnt.

I'm afraid you confuse "scientific basis" with "I don't even know of the scientific basis. Since I haven't learned enough to find one, I'll claim it has non."

while on the subject of evolution. dont forget the famous extra limbed dolphin

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227572,00.html


These extra limbs happen in every dolphin embrio and are re-absorbed in a later part of the development

Jeremy wrote...

Once again, this is an evolution no brainer. But this is where theories begin, not 100% facts (science is based on theories. Remember that).

Is that an admittance of having no evidence?

Jeremy wrote again...

According to the definition of species (ergo, that which can interbreed) some dogs are a new species. Some smaller type of dogs cannot impregnate larger ones even through artificial insemination.

Because you have not been able, as no one else has, to fully describe what is within a species and what isnt youve stated nothing.

A wolf is a different species OF dog, or a dog is a different species OF a wolf. Science isnt to blame for you not being able to define a species. If a dog can breed with any other dog its variety of dog. If a wolf can breed with any species of dog, its a dog. Or vice versa and they are all species OF wolfs.

Please note the species OF, the word of. OF something. Not totally seaparate thus not totally separate. If you find a dog that cant breed with any other dog or wolf and wasnt created by a dog or wolf, then and only then do you have a totally spearate species.

As for those picture caveman, i can only take your view that these are the results of evolution as you havent shown me evolution, just a picture and aclaim. Thats not evidence .

The fins on dolphins have a purpose, as does the anal spur on a snake. I fyou find something that you dont what its purpose is, first try to find its purpose rather than making a wild claim about why its there.

As for those picture caveman, i can only take your view that these are the results of evolution as you havent shown me evolution, just a picture and aclaim. Thats not evidence .

The fins on dolphins have a purpose, as does the anal spur on a snake. I fyou find something that you dont what its purpose is, first try to find its purpose rather than making a wild claim about why its there.

the rear fins, can you not see the rear fins? They are not on all dolphins but part of the development of the dolphin

Also just because the pythons use the spurs, it doesn't mean they are necessary and are not present in the majority of snakes

Still after all that it doesn't take away from the FACT

THEY ARE REMINENCE OF LEG


As for me showing you evolution, i can only show you the evidence of evolution like i have been. If you want to see actual evolution happening noticibly infront of you, you will be waiting a good few eon's to see it



Now for you........


Without using the bible(or bible sites) Prove without a shadow of doubt the creationism is fact

Moved here because it was not a debate on evolutionary matters, but a slanging match between creationists and evolutionists.

Please PM a mod if you are unhappy.

Megabrain.

Finally Caveman accepted...

If you want to see actual evolution happening noticibly infront of you, you will be waiting a good few eon's to see it

Its taken a week or two, but now we both agree on this. All i want IS indeed actual evidence.

There isnt any other evidence is there?

The spur is needed by these pythons as they cling to trees while leaning out to seize animals, thats enough of a reason for them. Dont guess another reason.

As for necessity, a song bird uses 4 songs for mating. Yet they can sing over 50 different tunes. Why? because God wants us to hear these wonderfull beautifull sounds and have joy whilst we live.





[/quote]

Originally Posted by Truth1010

Is that an admittance of having no evidence?

FUCK now you're quoting things like a reporter! Apparently you know jack about how a THEORY comes to be called a THEORY. It has evidence, but like all scientific processes, it is a *THEORY* not a *FACT*. Pick up "science for dummies" and see if you can learn something.

Because you have not been able, as no one else has, to fully describe what is within a species and what isnt youve stated nothing.

Wait, what? How does that have anything to do with what I said? Try proper grammar, and maybe I'll understand it.

A wolf is a different species OF dog, or a dog is a different species OF a wolf. Science isnt to blame for you not being able to define a species. If a dog can breed with any other dog its variety of dog. If a wolf can breed with any species of dog, its a dog. Or vice versa and they are all species OF wolfs.

species is defined by the ability to interbreed. Once a "dog" can't breed with another type of "dog" it is no longer of that subspecies.

Note: A species category is "Dog," while a subspecies category would be something that holds characteristics of a "dog" but cannot breed with certain types.

Please note the species OF, the word of. OF something. Not totally seaparate thus not totally separate. If you find a dog that cant breed with any other dog or wolf and wasnt created by a dog or wolf, then and only then do you have a totally spearate species.

Umm...do you realize you just contradicted yourself? And in doing so, only aided my case?

Dogs which cannot breed with certain types of dogs (like a chihuahua can't breed with some larger dogs) were "created" with eugenics by breeding dogs (which, by the way, dogs came from wolves. Google it).

Evolution is basically adaptations over millions of years by any means needed. However, eugenics can speed up the process or completely change it. An interesting case is when foxes were brought into captivity so people could begin a cheaper process of making furrs. Within a few generations, the "foxes" no longer even looked like foxes. Many had curled tails, different markings, and were overall useless.

Different environment, and different genes take over. This can be considered "evolution" to an extent, since they adopted different characteristics that their past evolved ancestors had for similar environments. This is an example of environment-adaptation (and small scale evolution. Something viruses and bacteria go through EVERY DAY).

The spur is needed by these pythons as they cling to trees while leaning out to seize animals, thats enough of a reason for them. Dont guess another reason.

eh no. you are very confused on this. pythons do not use these spurs to hold onto trees. Firstly the types of pythons that have these are usually(if not always) ground pythons like the royal python

and most importantly. how can a large python hold its weight on these?

Its taken a week or two, but now we both agree on this. All i want IS indeed actual evidence.

we agree on what? Are you saying you agree with small mutations in the evolution of animals. because that is what i was saying in respect to you having to wait along time to see massive changes eg the evolution from one physically different animal to another



Please try to read others work fully :-D

As for necessity, a song bird uses 4 songs for mating. Yet they can sing over 50 different tunes. Why? because God wants us to hear these wonderfull beautifull sounds and have joy whilst we live.

that is the biggest load of rubbish i ever heard. Did god also choose for these birds to slowly dissapear from the natural world over the last few years, cause weve heard them enough. Or is it the vengeful god having a go again?

did he put great whites in the sea to keep surfers on their toes [/url]

Originally Posted by Truth1010

Scientificly speaking we are aware how certain things work, orgasms etc. But we have no idea how they came about.

I know how my orgasms come about. :-D

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Truth1010

Scientificly speaking we are aware how certain things work, orgasms etc. But we have no idea how they came about.

I know how my orgasms come about. :-D

JW's only find out when they get married....... :wink:

ok 1010, i'm going to do like the prophet nathan did for david in
II Samuel xi: 1 to 25; Psalm 51,
i'm going to tell you an analogy.
this analogy is between how a tree grows, and how evolution works.

lets take a tree.
what you are saying, is that the leaves have spurted out of nowhere, created by a "god" and theres no tree to hold them up.
so in your sense of reality, all the trees are just leaves hanging in midair, which basically defies gravity.
don't you think thats a little wrong?

but maybe you don't have any knowledge of gravity.
anyways, this is the religious view of how things were created,
and why so many scientists oppose it.

scientists know there has to be a tree, they don't know the exact structure of the twigs, but they know it has a root, trunk and twigs.
scientists knows however very little of the seed.
its the seed which is in question, while you're questioning the whole tree.
which makes so many people angry.

heres a tree in gay colours, now sit down and try and actually think.

the trunk, thats our bacterial origin.
then theres the first split. and another, and another, on and on.
some twigs doesn't grow very large. some are broken off, some dies etc.
the same things happends in the animal kingdom.

now let me ask you a question. wouldn't god have created the trees, so that you could see the connection between evolution and the growth of the tree?
because if everything has a purpose, you better start looking around, instead of just sitting there with your nose in a book all day.
thats what scientists do.

if god is our father, theres nothing that pleases a good father more, than seeing his children come of age.

I find your screename particularly enlightening to this debate, TheGreatistScientist=God.
I think it's actually a great point. Creationists believe that God created the universe and everything in it, and created all the laws of nature.
So why do creationists continually challenge the objective study of how God put together this miraculous universe? Shouldn't it be embraced? The more and more you learn about how the universe works through science, the closer you come to God and the better an understanding of how GOD did it you will have.
Science should be embraced not rejected. TheGreatestScientist=God, right?

I'm sure the more scientifically ignorant (or intellectually dishonest) will challenge me and say they do embrace science, but only good science. And, of course, evolution doesn't qualify. But that's just smoke and mirrors and I think 95% of you damn well know it. I can forgive ignorance but intentional denial is what really steams me.

Once again, stay on topic. This is questions about evolution, nothing more, nothing less. Discuss those questions as much as you like, but please stay on the topic of said questions. Further off topic posts will be deleted in an attempt to HELP clean up the forum from further highly off-topic content.