Evolution doesnt make sense

[raiders rule]

Listen, I dont know why people can state boldly that evolution created and shaped us when its still just a THEORY. it hasnt been written in stone yet, it hasnt been 100 percent proven, its just a widely accepted THEORY. there are many holes in the Evolutional THEORY. Someone want to explain that to me?

[Oblivion]

For one, there aren't 'many holes' in the theory.
Also, it is a theory, just like creationism, or any religion. Nothing can ever be 100% proven, or ever be set in stone. It just can't.

Since it is a widely accepted theory, it is often considered 'right'

[Atonement]

The difference of evolutionism apart from any other "theories". Is that evolutionism has HARD FACTS. Ironic that you said its not written in stone because it is. There are cave carvings that depct evolution and move ape like humans and neanderthals. There is also such a close similarity to the apes and humans genes. So, there is more fact to this theory than any other theory or idea. This has hard cold fact. That is why it is so widely accepted.

Think of it like the Holocaust. Iran and many people don't believe that the Holocaust didn't exist. So, does that mean it didn't? No. It did. We have hard fact. So, can we distinctly ever PROVE anything? No. But we can find a LOT of evidence. I know, bad analogy, but if it helped, okay.

[Sage]

Everything is a theory if you think about it.

[serial-thrilla]

Listen, I dont know why people can state boldly that evolution created and shaped us when its still just a THEORY. it hasnt been written in stone yet, it hasnt been 100 percent proven, its just a widely accepted THEORY. there are many holes in the Evolutional THEORY. Someone want to explain that to me? yeah its pretty much been proven. do some research and you'll find it very hard to argue against.

[Techno Monster]

I don't even know why they call it a theory, because it is mostly proven, it also makes more sense than "god".

[raiders rule]

Listen, all im saying is to not to state it as a fact. I know there is hard evidence for it but can you 100 percent conclude from the little evidence for the theory? No, thats why its still a theory. And, another thing, I think its funny how everything turned out perfectly for life, every little thing......hmmmmm. If a trait evolved because it helped the species survive then why do some parts of our brains dedicated that have little to do with anything natural, like we parts of our brain dedicated to being social, how would that make us survive, i mean, look at some other animals and they have very little social skills within themselves and they seem to be fine, they dont need to be social to survive, or how we have parts that help to tell how much time has passed, why would we need that? And, why, of ALL the animals in the animal kingdom, we were the ones to develope a large brain and we are really one of the few animals that are self-aware, I mean really the other animals that are dolphins. And we are the only animal that is capable of higher thinking? someone wanna explain?;)

[serial-thrilla]

Listen, all im saying is to not to state it as a fact. I know there is hard evidence for it but can you 100 percent conclude from the little evidence for the theory? No, thats why its still a theory. And, another thing, I think its funny how everything turned out perfectly for life, every little thing......hmmmmm. If a trait evolved because it helped the species survive then why do some parts of our brains dedicated that have little to do with anything natural, like we parts of our brain dedicated to being social, how would that make us survive, i mean, look at some other animals and they have very little social skills within themselves and they seem to be fine, they dont need to be social to survive, or how we have parts that help to tell how much time has passed, why would we need that? And, why, of ALL the animals in the animal kingdom, we were the ones to develope a large brain and we are really one of the few animals that are self-aware, I mean really the other animals that are dolphins. And we are the only animal that is capable of higher thinking? someone wanna explain?;) Little evidence? theres tons of evidence that link us to apes. I dont really understand alot of what you say in the middle. Try breaking your ideas up in sentences and using spell check. Just because we dont know why we are the only living creature on earth that are capable of logical thinking, that does not disprove evolution one bit.

[raiders rule]

sorry i was typin kinda fast

[Andrew56]

Evolutionists will tell you it just happened. It all turned out that way.

I believe in adaption and survival of the fittest, but not Darwinism at all.

But man, let me tell you, you've started some huge. This is like making a post called, "Global Warming is not happening"

Buckle up.

Anyways. To the statement that we share a lot of genes with apes. True, and...

We share around 85% of our genes with mice.

Around 46% with yeast.

over 60% with fruit flies

And about 50% with a banana.

true we share(i think) 98.7% with apes, but as you can see the smallest little bit of difference can make huge changes (like that missing 1.3%) so that's not a very strong point IMO.

But I believe in a variation of evolution. Darwin was slightly correct. I think everything was created, but has changed slightly.

[raiders rule]

anyways, what i said is that we have some traits that we really dont need and wouldnt benefit our survival, it would help a lot in this day and age though.....:rolleyes:

[raiders rule]

I also have trouble believing that the deversity of animals on this planet could come from one single source, but thats just me

[MoveAlong]

The theory of evolution doesn't necessarily have holes, it just isn't perfect and we don't yet understand all of it.

Listen, all im saying is to not to state it as a fact. I know there is hard evidence for it but can you 100 percent conclude from the little evidence for the theory? No, thats why its still a theory. And, another thing, I think its funny how everything turned out perfectly for life, every little thing......hmmmmm.
You're right, it is strange how everything turned out so perfectly...air to breathe, cells to function, a biosphere. But what can presumably be called "perfection" might actually be extreme adaptations that are rugged in some parts, and fragile in others.

Like the Earth. This environment has everything we need, curiously...but if we tamper and pollute it, it can cause it to break down. Like global warming. It's perfect within its own limits until we push those limits. That's an explination of an ecosystem.
And not every little thing completely turned out for life; that may just be how we see it because we were fortunate enough to survive. Many species are killed due to natural selection; a process that has given us all we have now.

If a trait evolved because it helped the species survive then why do some parts of our brains dedicated that have little to do with anything natural, like we parts of our brain dedicated to being social, how would that make us survive, i mean, look at some other animals and they have very little social skills within themselves and they seem to be fine, they dont need to be social to survive, or how we have parts that help to tell how much time has passed, why would we need that? And, why, of ALL the animals in the animal kingdom, we were the ones to develope a large brain and we are really one of the few animals that are self-aware, I mean really the other animals that are dolphins. And we are the only animal that is capable of higher thinking? someone wanna explain?

We certainly are a rare species, if you compare our one species to all the others in the world. We still don't have ALL of the answers, so we can't answer why we are the only ones who have evolved this much.

But to answer your social question, it's true that apes are social creatures. They interact with each other, have families, and groom each other, etc. Maybe it's not to the extent that we interact, but it's a very primative form. Since humans supposedly came from apes, this might be why we are social.

But I don't think it's fair to insult evolution, since there is a large body of evidence that supports the theory.
Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs; therefore, some may completely believe in evolution, and take it for fact, just as others believe in creationism and believe that as fact.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

You can call EVERYTHING we know right now a theory. But that's only because we're only HUMAN. We simply don't have the knowledge of "everything" which for us (since we are, after all, glorified apes) is impossible at our state in evolution. However, there is a HUGE difference between BELIEVING and KNOWING. We know things, that point to the truth in evolution. There is NO proof, however, for creation. Even now things are evolving. Hell, HUMANS are evolving as we speak! Did you think that just because we've gotten as far as sentient thought that we'd STOP there?!

Just for one simple example; we've pretty much timed it that humans will lose their pinky toe in the next 50,000 years, simply because we DON'T NEED IT. Along these lines, our sense of smell is getting less and less sensitive since we don't use it as our "primary" sense (which would be sight followed by hearing).

[raiders rule]

You what, Flex has the best view on this, everyone has their own beliefs and i think we should leave it at that, but if you wanna keep going i will:P

[raiders rule]

So we settle it here, anyone can believe what they want to, settled here.:D

[Oblivion]

I agree with Zach, but also, i would like to add that there are so many planets out there, theoretically an infinite number of them, the right atmosphere for life to start is very rare.
So, yes it is rare, but it DID happen.

Does anyone really think it is more likely that a magical man-like being created the universe and humans?

More likely than if we started out as small unicellular organisms in oceans, where the organisms could take int he poisonous atmosphere and release oxygen? And when the oxygen built up, it created an atmosphere that could contain life forms that used the oxygen, and gave out the gasses the other organisms needed? And that the organisms that used oxygen were more complex than the unicellular beginning organisms, and they evolved as time went by? And that the plants also evolved at the same time, growing into multi cellular organisms?

And finally as both animals and plants grew more complex, they inhabited the earth in a balanced atmosphere that was very rare, but almost perfect?

[gookmique]

Listen, I dont know why people can state boldly that evolution created and shaped us when its still just a THEORY. it hasnt been written in stone yet, it hasnt been 100 percent proven, its just a widely accepted THEORY. there are many holes in the Evolutional THEORY. Someone want to explain that to me?

you could say the same for manyous of religion. however, evolution makes sense, there is firm evidence backing up the THEORY aswell. i laugh at people who say "well, god put dinosaur bones on earth to test out faith". i blatently tell them i believe god put YOU on earth to test my faith... :yes:

[0=]

Evolution doesnt make sense

Tell that to a biologist. He or she will probably make you feel so stupid you'll cry. Trust me, my sister's a biologist.

[raiders rule]

Ok i will then, Bring it on:lol::D hahah no not really

[raiders rule]

Ok lets put it this way, you cant disprove god and you cant disprove evolution, does that settle well?

[0=]

Something can only be a theory if it has an observable scientific basis. God is not a theory, but evolution is, so that was a terrible comparison. Take a look at the HIV virus if you need observational evidence of evolution.

[gookmique]

Ok lets put it this way, you cant disprove god and you cant disprove evolution, does that settle well?

theres plenty of evidence disaproving god aswell. i don't want to cross any boundaries or anything, so i'll leave it to this:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

just watch the first 30 minutes. it'll change your perception on everything.

[Zan0ra]

i'm not going to read everyone Else's post so if I have posted something similar to yours then sorry.

Evolution makes perfect sense. Here watch these

walking with monsters part 1 ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXxkeaTyHcE)

All 12 parts are there, just search for them. But there is a huge hole in our existence
I could right 6 paragraphs on my own theory but i'm not. Maybe another time

[raiders rule]

Ok you know what, i what all of you guys to explain the evolutional theory to me since you seem to know Sooo much about it, and explain to me how you could disprove god. Like i heard a pastor say once " a religion is not a science" its what i believe in, i dont need to prove it, but still, i wanna hear all the facts that prove evolution, throw them at me

[Zan0ra]

well your a christian, i'm an atheist. I'm not going to help disprove your religion. ok firstly i'm NOT trying to change your belief. I'm mealy stating mine.

4.3 billion years ago earth was a tried up planet. Unable to support life.
then it all changed.....
Another planet, theia. Crashed into earth *bdw theia could support life*
a chunk of theia became our moon. And slowly our oceans formed and
life was ready to begin.

First there where sea creatures. Simple like jellyfish. Then came reptiles and moved onto more animals spreading through land and see. Those animals evolved into what we called the dinosaurs. Then when the asteroid destroyed 65% of them *I think* the earth was terraformed and we began to appear.

The point i'm trying to make is did god come to those animals? na that sounds stupid. Put it this way. There was a documentary made some time ago. That they had found the tomb of jesus. *with his bones there and everything* He was found in his family's temple with his brothers and father. I was already an athiest before that. I gues I stopped beliving because...Nothing seamed to fit.

[raiders rule]

I think we should put a close to this thread before people start to get mad(like i am). so no more, done,finished.Right now i dont care about what anyone thinks and about the "facts" its my fuckin belief so lets leave it at that.

[Zan0ra]

Raider made his point. Its our belief. Even if i'm not on the same side as raider he has made a valid point. I dont have a time machine. I dont have any photographs. You should be who you want to be. I do think this thread should be locked. But I remember why I quit being a christian and gave up my belief.

It began to scare me. I was practically being verbally threatened. I would have nightmares of the end of the world, and that may possibly happen in 2036 to let some of you know. *pm me for more* I didn't want to die. 2012 scared the f**k out of me! I didn't want it to happen. But I settled down. I realised that there is a god in everyone of us. And that's how I turned.

Please dont argue this. Please dont pm me about this.

[RaisingSand]

Listen, I dont know why people can state boldly that evolution created and shaped us when its still just a THEORY. it hasnt been written in stone yet, it hasnt been 100 percent proven, its just a widely accepted THEORY. there are many holes in the Evolutional THEORY. Someone want to explain that to me?

Quite frankly, I don't see why we should. If you can't already see how evolution "works", nor can you accept that blatant scientific facts behind the theory, then I doubt anyone explaining it to you is going to make much difference.
Whilst a lot of the theory of evolution has been basically assumed and/or summarized, I do believe that was necessary for archaeologists to construct an as-close-to-accurate as possible picture of how it all went back then.
And as for evolution being infactual and just a theory; while it may not have all happend exactly as we have been told or let to think; there is too much evidence to the contary to believe it's just all a load of crock. Anyone with simple logic, basic reasoning skills and average level intelligence can see that.

[raiders rule]

Ok, lets put an end to this, now were starting to call people stupid, oh by the way damaged hearts, if your gonna call people stupid you might not wanna call me, i probally have a higher IQ than you do, try high 120s low 130s. Oh, its not that i dont see the facts,its that i choose to believe in god dumbass,

[Bobby]

This thread was going somewhat well...anymore fighting after this post and it's closed and infractions might be issued.

[raiders rule]

Anyone with simple logic, basic reasoning skills and average level intelligence can see that.[/quote] way to play nice:P

Ok, well, since everyone says that there is lots of facts about evolution, i want you guys to tell me what they are. Well go from there

[ThatCanadianGuy]

See this is why (I'm just being honest) religion is bad if you want to know MORE about the world and how it works. As soon as people start to explain to you how we actually KNOW the earth came to be, all religions become defensive; as SOON as you hear an idea that threatens your beliefs (and God forbid, proves them WRONG! :O) you totally shut down and refuse to hear any more on the subject. It's nothing against you at all pal, it's just the way religion seems to affect people's rationality. I used to be the exact same way: as soon as somebody's argument started to make SENSE, and God started to make less and less sense, I totally went into my shell and said "game over, I don't wanna play no more, or hear your side of it. I believe in God and that's that"

But isn't that really limiting you? I mean, if we all did that, we'd pretty much have given up most scientific endeavours that have MADE the breakthoughs that show us how evolution, the Big Bang, and everything else really happened!

[0=]

Why is everyone arguing about religion now? Religion and evolution are completely different. Religion attempts to explain the supernatural, creation, etc, whereas evolution is a scientific explanation of biological processes based on observational evidence. Please ignore whoever is posting theories on the origin of life as part of evolution, as that is a lie. Evolution is an explanation of how random mutation causes species to change and adapt.

Here's the best, most honest explanation anyone can give of evolution:

Let's say you're an early bird; you don't have specialized, powerful flight muscles, so you can only become airborne by jumping off a cliff and gliding on updrafts. One of your offspring has a genetic mutation that causes its flight muscles to be slightly stronger, so that offspring now has a slight advantage: it can take off from a lower starting altitude. This mutation is then passed off to its offspring (let's assume it happens to be a dominant gene) and its offspring have even stronger flight muscles. The mutant would also have more offspring than usual because its mutation caused it to be superior, thus gaining it more mating rights. Over the course of many, many generations these new birds eventually take off from ground level and stay airborne under their own power due to their better flight muscles.

Alternate scenario, you're this same starting bird. Your offspring has a mutation that causes its feathers to grow irregularly, making flight impossible. Your offspring does not reproduce at all and dies while being chased by a larger predator. This is a more common scenario, but, statistically, mutations with positive effects do occur as in the first scenario. If you want to observe evolution in real time just look at the HIV virus case to case; it evolves so quickly that doctors have to draw an evolutionary tree just to trace who someone got the virus from.

Feel free to say none of this makes any sense, but it's just straight, proven biology.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Alrighty, back to business then, eh? Thanks for pointing out the birds, it's bring up one of my favourite topics: the link between birds and dinosaurs! yay! :D

Isn't it amazing that birds of today are ancestors of some of the largest and most ferocious animals on the planet? Dinosaurs shared many traits that we would see in birds millions of years later. One, the pubic bone is turned back lke a bird. Two; some dinosaurs shared the "hollowed out" or honeycombed structure in their bones which now makes birds light enough to fly. Three; dinosaurs like velociraptor (NOW don't think about Jurassic Park, it was horribly inaccurate) were a bit bigger than a medium-sized dog and had FEATHERS! Soon reptillian "birds" such as Archaeopterix were found, they had beaks that still had reptile teeth in them, scaly skin, and feathery wings! Only several other species were able to do this before we got full-fledged birds. You can even see it in the way birds move about; on their hind legs, which look a LOT like dinosaur feet don't they? With the big TALONS and all that!

Here's an article on archaeopterix (known as the "first/original bird") take a look at his head! It looks like a raptor's!

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

And remember the Velociraptor you know and love from Jurassic Park? Here's an rendering of what they ACTUALLY looked like (the colours may be off, but pigments tend to not survive the fossil record).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Velociraptor_BW.jpg

[raiders rule]

I wasnt getting defensive i was just getting mad and i didnt want to say something that would get me in trouble

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Okee dokee... um... I dunno do you want more proof anyways? Or did me and Flex do okay :D

[serial-thrilla]

If you list all the problems and "holes" you see in evolution specifically, then maybe someone can answer them. Just saying you don't understand evolution in general is far too vague. There is so much to evolution noone could answer everything about it in a single post.

[raiders rule]

Ok, heres a good example, really long. the woodpecker. Evolutionists have had trouble explaining the woodpeckers tongue, it can be up to 3 times longer than it beak. Normally birds tongues are as long as there beaks, but the woodpecker needs there tongue to reach there food. In some woodpeckers it forks in the throat, goes below the base of the jaw, wraps behind and over the skull, inserts into the birds right nostril or around the eye socket. How did it manage to go almost 360 degrees around the skull and still manage to work. Evolutionists have had a hard time explaining this wonderous "adaptation". They claim the woodpecker must have evolved from birds with normal tongues that go straight out the beak. Yet the idea that this all happened through small, gradual steps stretches the imagination. Not only is the lenght of the tongue a marvel, the texture is to. in young woodpeckers the tongue is smooth and does not develope barbs to catch larvae until adulthood. They secrete a special saliva that acts like glue until they can develope the barbs to cach insects. So the woodpeckers tongue can create glue and later become a barb factory all arriving at the right time so the bird can survive. can evolution explain all these characteristics? A second marvel of the woodpecker is its beak. The woodpeckers beak is like a chisel, capable of boring right through a tree, as it pecks its able to find the grub by vibrations and the grubs noise. Then it makes just the right hole with the proper angle to reach the insect galleries with its long tongue. With modern technology we can make steel chisels to cut into a tree like a woodpecker, yet the chisel eventually loses it sharpness, yet scientists have found that the woodpecker beak never loses it sharpness no matter how many holes it pecks. A third feature is its shock absorbing head, any norma bird that tried to drill a hole in a tree it would die. it is like taking te full force of a hammer hitting a chisel on your nose thousands of times. the woddpecker, however comes equipped with shock absorbing equipment. It is composed of spongy tissue located between the beak and the brain absorbing the violent shock waves thus not affecting the birds brain. Finally the woodpecker doesnt have nromal tailfeathers but special feathers that anchor it for when its doing it buisness. These feathes are used as a brace while climbing a tree or feeding, they all the woodpecker to lean back so they can literally throw themselves at the tree. All four of these amazing features(and many more) would have evolved at the same time to give survival benefits to a "proto woodpecker". how could evolution and natural processes explain that?

[0=]

The same way it explains everything else. You don't seem to comprehend the term "millions" when we refer to years. That in no way disproves evolution; it merely demonstrates that woodpeckers have complex anatomical features. It's a logical fallacy to use complexity as an argument against evolution.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Um... I'm failing to see your point. All these characteristics basically just go to show that over time woodpeckers evolved and got gradually better and better adapted to do what the do best... woodpeck. Just because its a drastic change that seems impossible from it's predecessors to NOW doesn't change the fact that it happened; at first I'm sure there were no such things as woodpecking-type birds. So... they evolved into them. What's the big mystery?

Even if you had an argument there (I don't see one) are you going to say that based purely on WOODPECKERS, the whole theory of evolution is moot. I don't get where you think that FIRST there were just "birds" and them *BAM* we get woodpeckers. Evolution doesn't work like that! It takes thousands of years, and slowly but surely a species of bird developed all of these characteristics as a way of surviving and adapting to it's environment.... so... ?

[raiders rule]

Listen, i never said it completely disproves evolution, what im sayingis that it had to have all those things there or they couldnt do what they do, and according to evolution, traits evolve over time and thats not what happened with the woodpecker, anyways you want some more holes?

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Um... there are still TONS of holes! Too bad that... it doesn't MATTER. You see, a great evolution-fighter Kent Hovind (I wouldn't call him great though) would always pick at one or two holes along the line of evolution and say THERE! Because of this one LITTLE problem I've found where everything sorta makes sense only HALF of the way... the WHOLE evolution theory has to be thrown RIGHT out the window.

But that's the whole PURPOSE of the scientific method and discovery; to fill in these holes. If there were any REAL holes (I mean ones that actually challenged the truth of the theory), then it just wouldn't be possible that for so long that the fields of astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics, geology (I could keep going) ALL came to the SAME conclusion that evolution is true, and all these fields did it ON THEIR OWN. There was no little secret "meeting" of all the scientists in the world where they all decided to claim the same "bullshit" story. No, the research and TESTING done by each separate branch of SCIENCE has PROVEN evolution without fail. Not one facet of science goes against it.

So go ahead and show me some glaring holes.

[raiders rule]

Ok, i will try:D

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Oh I'm sure you will :rolleyes: keep 'em coming.

[raiders rule]

Ok, sorry,ive been gone all day. anyways her i go. Here are 3 questions that still remain unsolved. 1. How does evolution add to a genome to create progressively more complicated organisms?**************************** 2.How is evolution able to bring about drastic changes so quick?**************************** 3.How could the first living cell arise spontaneously to get evolution started.Ok, moving on to another hole.Ok, heres another, this one is long.1There is almost universal agreement among specialists that earths primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia, or hyrdogen,-"reducing" gases. Rather most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work without the reducing gases.2.The atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would destroy organic compounds. Oxygen would be produced by photodissociation of water vapour. Oxidised minerals such as hematite are found as early as 3.8 billion years old, almost as old as the earliest rocks and 300 million older than the earliest life.3.If there was no oyxgen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy biochemicals.4.All energy sources that produce the biochemicals would destroy them even faster! The miller/urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/uv did not destroy them. without the traps even the tiny amounts obtained would not have formed.5. Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars(and other carbonyl(>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids(and other amino(-NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form.Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde(HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide(HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents,etc. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons-HCN was used in the nazi gas chambers! they destroy vital proteins. Abundant Ca2+ would precipitate fatty acids(necessary for cell membranes) and phospate(necessary for such vital compounds as DNA,RNA ATP,etc) Metal ions readily from complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions.
6. No geological evidence has been found anywere on earth for the alledged primordial soup.
7.Depolymerisation is much faster than polymerisation. Water is a poor medium for condensation polymerisation. Polymers will hydrolyse in water over geological time. condensing agents(water absorbing chemicals) require acid conditions and they could not accumalate in water. Heating to evaporate water tends to destroy some vital amino acids,racemise all the amino acids, and requires geologically unrealistic conditions. Besides heating amino acids with other gunk by miller experiments would destroy.
8.Polymerisation requires bifunctional molecules(can combine with two others) and is stopped by a small fraction of unifunctional molecules(can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain) Miller experiments produced five times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules.
9.Sugars are destroyed quickly after the reaction('formose'), which is supposed to have formed them. Also, the alkaline conditions needed to from sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with condensing agents.
10.Long time periods do not help the evolutional theory if biochemicals are destroyed faster than they are formed.
11. Not all necessary 'building blocks' are formed;eg.ribose cytosine are hard to form and ae very unstable.
12.Lige requires homochiral polymers(all the same 'handedness') proteins have only 'left handed' amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only 'right handed' sugars. miller experiments produce racemates-equal mixture of left handed and right handed molecules. A small fraction of the wrong handed molecules terminates RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes.
13.Life requires catalysts which are specific for a a single type of molecule. This requires specific amino acid sequences, which have extremely low probalilities. Prebiotic polymerisation simulations yield random sequences, not functional proteins or enzymes.
14.the origin of the coding system of proteins on DNA is an enigma. So, this is the origin of the message encoded, which is extraneous to the chemistry, as a printed message is to ink molecules. Code translation apparatus and replicating machinery are themselves encoded-a vicious circle. A code cannot self-organize.
15. The origin of machines requires design, not random energy.E.g: the Nobel prize winner Merrifield designed an automatic protein synthesiser. Each amino acid added to the polymer requires 90 steps. The amino acid program is determined by a program. A living cell is like a self replicating merrifield machine.
There guys, those are some holes in the theory:D

[Zan0ra]

Phew. I'm having to scim read that mate, ok I will do my best.

1) Dramatic changes in weather/climate

2) Its not fast its over course over millions of years. They either adapt or die out

3) Theia *a planet with life* smashed into earth, part of theia became are moon and slowly are oceans formed until life on earth was ready to begin. - basically the organisms on theia got transferred to earth. This also sorts out your next two question's about there being no Ozone *i'm a wiz when it comes to this sorta stuff*

6) I have no idea what that is *gimme a hint?*

7) Again i'm not to sure what this is so I think this relates to the my the third question

8/9) um I think this might also relate to the third question but i'm unsure

10) The first life was 500 million years ago. And took millions of years to very slowly change. there form. The little hythocti was about the size of your thumbnail and was the very first vertebrate. Without it *assuming you believe evolution* we wouldn't be here today.

11) Yes, so they must adapt to there surroundings or die out.

12) I hardly know these words since i'm only 13. So can you narrow this one down a bit please?

13) This probably had been passed down from theia

14) Are you referring to allow them to the animals gender? all animals have the gene to turn male. but something denies them that and I cant put my finger on it.

15) Some animal designs may have originated on theia although another theory suggests that it came to earth from a meteor. The genes might have mixed. I really have no idea on that one.

[raiders rule]

umm, the first three questions remain unanswered so those dont count, and all 15 are different from the first 3 so they are all different and require there each and individual explanation

[Zan0ra]

Theia was a planet that smashed into earth 4.3 billion years ago. How do I know this well the moon is basically just a giant volcanic rock. And so we get even.

revenge! (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html) - :-)

Due to the the impact obviously everything would have changed a lot like the theory of mars came to play.

You must watch this raiders! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXxkeaTyHcE) you will understand what i'm saying better and how it relates your questions.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Early Earth was dominated by volcanoes, a gray, lifeless ocean and a turbulent atmosphere. Vigorous chemical activity occurred in heavy clouds, which were fed by volcanoes and penetrated both by lightning discharges and solar radiation.

The ocean received organic matter from the land and the atmosphere, as well as from infalling meteorites and comets. Here, substances such as water, carbon dioxide, methane and hydrogen cyanide formed key molecules such as sugars, amino acids and nucleotides. Such molecules are the building blocks of proteins and nucleic acids, compounds ubiquitous to all living organisms.

A critical early triumph was the development of RNA and DNA molecules, which directed biological processes and preserved life's "operating instructions" for future generations. But the origin of life was triggered not only by special molecules such as RNA or DNA, but also by the chemical and physical properties of Earth's primitive environments.

Most of life's history involved the biochemical evolution of single-celled microorganisms. We find individual fossilized microbes in rocks 3.5 billion years old, yet we can conclusively identify multicelled fossils only in rocks younger than 1 billion years.


Of course we still don't know how it exactly happened; the Theia "giant impact" theory is more of a theory to explain the creation of the Moon and part of the asteroid belt. No matter how hard it could have been for life to form on Earth "life finds a way". The chemicals present in early-Earth were the kind that were just begging to start becoming more complex. If you were to debate evolution any further, you're going to have to give us a theory that YOU think is better than evolution. And this theory of yours better have proof or merit in ALL branches of scientific study.

No matter how much you want to debate it; you can NOT deny the age of the planet; and how long it took for things to EVOLVE to the complexity we now have.

[Zan0ra]

Theia didnt create the astoroid belt. That was another planet here watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwebbuvq4qo) for the astoroid bealt/mars theory. See this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis) for more info on theia.

And lay of him will ya? He's doing th best he can.

[raiders rule]

Hey, this has been fun arguing with you guys, heh?:D

[Rutherford The Brave]

Let me ask you something how doesn't evolution make sense? See we couldn't have spontaneously generated cause that was disproved. It all started with Aristotle who recognized the aphids only came from the dew that landed on plants. Then Robert Hooke came around and studied cells thus furthering our progress on how life came to be. Then in 1676 Anthony van Leeuwenhoek discovered microorganisms that, based on his drawings and descriptions are thought to have been protozoa and bacteria. Then all these thoughts and answers were taken further when Redi proved that when meat was covered with cloth there were no maggots. The alternative seemed to be omne vivum ex ovo: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (literally, everything from an egg). In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air, and could be killed by boiling. Yet it was not until 1861 that Louis Pasteur performed a series of careful experiments which proved that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not appear in nutrient rich media of their own accord in non-living material, and which supported cell theory. Basically all the work that these men did proved that evolution makes sense because we didn't just suddenly show up on earth. These men proved that we came from something that came from something else. Thus proving that we had to have come from something in order for us to be here. Now believe what you want but I still say evolution makes sense.

[Zan0ra]

Instead of poking holes in evolution how about creationism. :P

[0=]

I'll say this one more time: evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, so please create a separate thread for debating the origin of life.

Concerning the former two of the three "holes" mentioned:

Genetic mutation causes genes to change. It's the same thing that causes birth defects and cancer, but sometimes the birth defect can be beneficial (such as increased musculature, abnormal skeletal features, etc.). Secondly, evolution is by no means fast. Unless you consider millions of years fast it is actually quite slow. It is for this very reason that mass extinctions occur: hostile conditions develop more rapidly than evolution can keep up, thus causing many species to fail to cope with change and die.

[Lumo]

Evolutionists will tell you it just happened. It all turned out that way.

I believe in adaption and survival of the fittest, but not Darwinism at all.

But man, let me tell you, you've started some huge. This is like making a post called, "Global Warming is not happening"

Buckle up.

Anyways. To the statement that we share a lot of genes with apes. True, and...

We share around 85% of our genes with mice.

Around 46% with yeast.

over 60% with fruit flies

And about 50% with a banana.

true we share(i think) 98.7% with apes, but as you can see the smallest little bit of difference can make huge changes (like that missing 1.3%) so that's not a very strong point IMO.

But I believe in a variation of evolution. Darwin was slightly correct. I think everything was created, but has changed slightly.

I belive what you said

[CaptainObvious]

Andrew56 obviously doesn't know a whole lot if he says that he believes in the process of natural selection but not in "Darwinism".

The bottom line on evolution is this: Darwin postulated an elegant process by which random mutation and change would, over time, result in an improvement in survival fitness through slow evolution and natural selection. This process has been experimentally verified.

The natural selection mechanism (and "micro-evolution") is not in question. But somehow people pick out "macro-evolution" to disagree with. Why? Because it's a different process? No, it's the exact same process, over a longer period - what these critics are basing their attacks on is their own ideological belief in a being that they consider to be incompatible with evolution (God). There is absolutely no argument against evolution that is not predicated on a blindingly ideological belief in a deity.

And that is why I have very little time or respect for those who argue against evolution.

[*Dissident*]

Ok, I really didn't read the third page of this thread.

Evolution is one of the most interesting subjects to me. My understanding does not include the "theia" theory. I believe that an object like theia crashed into earth creating the moon, but I don't necessarily believe that is what "started" life. Maybe it helped, I don't know.

First, lets go back 6 billion years. There was a star, known today as the sun, in the galaxy known today as the milky way. Every day it spewed millions of tons of Hydrogen and Helium atoms into space, as well as enormous amounts of energy in the form of heat and light. After millions, even billions of years, these hydrogen and helium atoms fused into the elements we know today, and through gravity, formed a semi-spherical rock known today as earth. This planet was, for a billion years, unsuitable for life. It was too hot, and there was no water. But, eventually, an atmosphere with a small amount of oxygen, not enough for us to survive today, formed, in addition to oceans of water. And not only H2O... liquid H2O. Earth, at this point, had cooled sufficiently from its volcanic stage into a more hospitable form, which, in most places, was between 0 degrees celsius and 100 degrees, making liquid water possible. Nowhere else in the universe, that we know of, does a planet exist just far enough from its star that it can maintain this balance. This balance is aided by an atmosphere, partially consisting of carbon, which brings me to the next part.

Now here is where things get confusing. In addition to oxygen and water, complex carbon molecules formed, based on carbon's ability to combine with other elements in long chains. These molecules diversified for a really long time, and combined in millions of ways. Eventually, about 3.5 billion years ago, in the ocean, they combined in just a way to produce something that we now know as a "cell". It wasn't nearly as complex as we know cells to be today, but it could preform the following functions:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state;
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, like the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (in this case, asexually, from a single parent organism)

This first "cell" then reproduced (the most important of the above factors, in this case) to form another identical cell, and so on, until mutations formed, and those cells reproduced, until more mutations formed, and those reproduced, etc. This unicellular cycle lasted for over a billion years until simple multicellular organisms formed. And it took millions more to form what we know today as "animals"; the previous multicellular organisms were simple underwater plants or algae. This process continued for millions and millions years more.

Eventually, an animal evolved to fill the niche of the tide and the waves going back and forth on the shore. It was still in the water mostly, but it had to be able to be on land for just a little bit and stay alive. It also needed another adaptation for this lifestyle: legs. Eventually this creature became the first ever land animal, complete with legs and primitive lungs. It was most likely an amphibian. Millions of years before this, plants, needed a much simpler respiration adaptation for land-life, had already migrated to land. Trees covered nearly the entire planet (at this time pangea), and thus the oxygen percentage of the time was much higher than it is today. This aided in the transition from gills to lungs in early land animals. These land animals once again went through the trial and error process of evolution to form the dinosaurs and early mammals. Then, about 65 million years ago, a meteor hit the earth, making surviving as a large animal impossible, killing the dinosaurs. The only animals to survive were very small in comparison. Eventually, in the interim 65 million years between then and now, these animals further diversified to a critical point in northern africa: the diversification of apes and humans. Eventually, it came to a point where one species of animal, what we would identify closely to today's chimpanzee's, split. A group of them decided to climb out of the trees and become "land" animals. This group eventually developed a more upright bipedal bone structure. This species then went through another key adaptation: its brain grew. It developed imagination and creativity, which led to the first tools. It developed a social structure because it was absolutely necessary. Not only could humans not survive alone, due to our lack of talons and hard skin, etc, but we had to be able to share and teach the methods of our "inventions" to other generations, and to fellow humans. And we also needed to have sex a lot. Eventually, we come to the beginning of recorded history, where human evolution comes in a different flavor.

No longer is human evolution a physical process. It is now a mental, emotional, spiritual, and sociological process. And it is speeding up very rapidly. At first, it took thousands of years to go from nomadic life to a self sufficient village structure. It took thousands more to develop even simple technologies. Slowly but surely, the process has been speeding up. We develop better technologies, we all get smarter and more creative, and then develop better technologies faster than before, making us all smarter and more creative, and so on, until you get to the last century and a half. 150 years ago we didn't have electricity and barely even steam power. 50 years ago we didnt have computers. 20 years ago we didnt have internet. and so on. The process of new technology is surely speeding up, and eventually it must reach a point where new technology comes every day, every hour, every minute...and so on. This is all a very big tangent, but its a form of evolution nonetheless.

[Camazotz]

Everything is a theory. We don't understand everything, but the theory of evolution makes a lot of sense. Why are we so much smarter than all the other animals? Evolution. We have evolved from other homo sapiens, who probably evolved from some sort of ape. We evolved a large brain which allows us to think and survive so well.