SO CALLED ATHIESTS – Why isn’t evolution a far fetched theory??

[growingjudy]

PLEASE KEEP TO THE SUBJECT!! (We can talk about religions another time)
Look how complex the eye is. All eyes work basically the same in all humans and animals. All ears work basically the same. Everyone walks basically the same. Isn’t it strange that there are not hundreds of kinds of eyes and ears that work on completely different levels? Why aren’t there people with one eye and one ear or a couple of of eyes and ears?
I learned a lot of things in biology and I ask my teachers lots of questions. I also ask my parents. I am starting puberty and am fascinated by it. Could someone believe that almost all baby dinosaurs died of starvation for billions of years as they were pulling at their mothers’ chests figuring milk might come out of them one day. Finally after another few billion years they pulled so much they developed into bumps which decided to produce milk to make the baby dinosaurs happy. After another few billion years these bumps got their act straight and decided the time they should start to grow is when a girl can start having babies. These bumps decided only to grow to a size that is conformable for the baby and then they stop growing.
Why can’t people cross bread with animals or fruits? Why aren’t there applewomen and wormboys?
Take just any one organ and it is so so amazing, please tell me all you atheists how there are so so many things each one by itself is vertically impossible to have developed by itself, besides for all the misfits that we don’t see around!!

ADDITION
All eyes, ears, noses, breasts and penises are not exactly the same, but they are similar enough. Bigger ones and smaller ones also can work well. If they are not exactly at that spot they also are okay. It is too fascinating that everyone is as uniform as they are, to say they developed that way by themselves.
Also I was thinking that if I would throw bottles of ink from the top of buildings for millions of years, I imagine that the chances that it will make one sentence is probably one in a few billion if not less. And that is nothing compared to one organ of one little animal. Where did nature get its brain from that it needs to exist! And then this brain made all these complex things.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU CAN BELIEVE IN A THEORY WITH CHANCES THAT EACH THING BY ITSELF IN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS IS ALMOST IMPOSIBLE THAT IT HAPPENED - IF NOT MUCH LESS THAN THAT!!
Also where are the fossils of the misfits? There must be billions of them? What about black magic, it does work, where does a soul come into evolution?

[Oblivion]

The fact that we are so much alike just further proves evolution. Each species is basically a step towards something else, stepping stones. They are much alike, with slight differences to adapt to their habitat. Plus, most animals eyes, ears, and walking patterns are actually not very similar to animals of different kingdoms or phylums or classes. Saying that all animals walk, see, and hear the same is simply not correct.

I won't even talk much about the dinosaur example. It has many flaws; I would suggest looking up the theory of evolution and reexamine how these changes occurred. It wasn't that simple. Babies didn't suckle on the bare chests and suddenly breasts appeared; that's actually much more like creationism than evolutionism.

Finally, you can't crossbreed fruits and animals because they have completely different genetic makeups, and completely different sexual/reproductive organs. Most animals can't crossbreed because again, they have completely different genetic make ups, including different amounts and types of chromosomes. Some animals however can crossbreed, like lions and tigers, because they are in the same genus, merely different species. They have similar genetics, and reproductive organs so they can mate and reproduce.


I'll add at the end a thing I find fascinating:
You find evolution complete blasphemy, yet you can easily believe creationism? That some magical being int he sky created all of this?

I'd like to add another thought. One of Darwin's most famous research expeditions was to the Galapagos Islands, where he observed birds that adapted almost every generation. Every so often, I believe the most common seed size/kind changed on the island, and the birds needed to adapt to accommodate the new seeds. They would be born with larger beaks, smaller beaks, sharper beaks, whatever physical adaptions they needed to survive. And it's not like they had mutations during birth or something; it was survival of the fittest at it's finest. The birds that could survive with the new seeds in the original generation were the ones that could survive to reproduce. The new generation would be almost all of the kind that could survive with the new seeds. It illustrates perfectly the natural selection and advancement of nature.

[Commander Thor]

Just thought I'd add.
While yes, you can cross-breed certain species of animals, because their genetic makeup is so close, their offspring are sterile, meaning they cannot reproduce.

[MoveAlong]

Ok I'm sorry but it was really difficult to understand your post, growingjudy.

Why can’t people cross bread with animals or fruits? Why aren’t there applewomen and wormboys?
Because they are different species and have different numbers of chromosomes, they cannot breed. Also, see Oblivion's post.

Take just any one organ and it is so so amazing, please tell me all you atheists how there are so so many things each one by itself is vertically impossible to have developed by itself, besides for all the misfits that we don’t see around!!

Nature finds what works out best for itself. I believe that nature has found livers and kidneys and brains and eyes to be very useful, so in turn, many animals have it, because they're so convenient for its survival.

The reason we have so many different types of bird and other animals is because of mutation and adaptation, again so the organism can survive. They adapt to their environment so there are different types of these things.

[Sapphire]

First of all, not all animals eyes and ears work in the same way. Moles and bats are blind. Snakes rely more on touch and smell than sight and hearing in receiving information about their environment. Also, their ears are distinctly different from ours as they don't have an external ear, a middle ear or eardrums.

You can't crossbreed animals and fruits for the obvious reason that the two share little to no genetic make up.
Crossbreeding animals is only possible with some species. And as said above, animals which are the result of crossbreeding are sterile so the genes can't be passed on. When horses and donkeys are crossbred you get a mule, for example.

Evolution isn't a far-fetched theory because fossils and animals are there that back it up. We can, by comparing the skeletal structure of animals across time, see how evolution has occurred.
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/macampbell/Gordon/art/bievolutionhorse.gif

[INFERNO]

All eyes work basically the same in all humans and animals.

No they don't. For starters, there is a immense diversity for the visual acuity of various animals and humans. Also, certain animals, such as dogs, have another layer to their eyes, which serves as protection. Organisms that live underwater have a differently constructed eye to allow them to see underwater effectively.


All ears work basically the same.

They do not perform the same and there is substantial differences in terms of the anatomy and physiology of ears across numerous animals.


Everyone walks basically the same.

This is also false, even among humans. Take for example, someone with clubfoot. They will not walk the same as the average human being would. Amongst various organisms, reptiles have their legs and arms "sprawled" out. Crocodiles are rather interesting as they can switch between this sprawled out version and the bipedalism that humans use.


Why aren’t there people with one eye and one ear or a couple of of eyes and ears?

Actually, there are people with one eye, such as cyclops (not the cartoon or mythical idea) but it is a genetic disorder among humans. One ear also occurs. They don't occur very often, however, they do exist.


Could someone believe that almost all baby dinosaurs died of starvation for billions of years as they were pulling at their mothers’ chests figuring milk might come out of them one day. Finally after another few billion years they pulled so much they developed into bumps which decided to produce milk to make the baby dinosaurs happy. After another few billion years these bumps got their act straight and decided the time they should start to grow is when a girl can start having babies. These bumps decided only to grow to a size that is conformable for the baby and then they stop growing.

This is horribly wrong. For one, the "bumps" (I'll stick with your terminology) don't decide something. They are incapable of that. Many of these new features were made from a mutation. More often than not, a mutation leads to something negative, however, it can lead to something positive. The "bumps" don't appear just because the baby dinosaurs pulled on a random area of skin or scales. That is akin to saying if I pulled at the skin of my arm forever, as did my future kids and their kids did too, etc..., then because of that, we'd sprout a "bump" or perhaps even another arm. No, that is not how it works.



Why can’t people cross bread with animals or fruits? Why aren’t there applewomen and wormboys?

Because at the microbiological level, plant cells and animal cells are vastly different, as are the proteins and other molecules associated with them. For an applewomen to somehow occur, the two parents (the apple and woman) must have some genetic compatability with each other and share enough commonality in their cells and their physiology and productions. The two operate completely differently and if one were to give a woman some apple DNA, the only thing she may get is an infection from whatever pesticide was on the apple, obstruction from the apple or nothing at all. Same for wormboys.


Take just any one organ and it is so so amazing, please tell me all you atheists how there are so so many things each one by itself is vertically impossible to have developed by itself, besides for all the misfits that we don’t see around!!

New features come about from a variety of ways, one commonly referred one being a mutation. A mutation introduces something new, something different. Based on that mutation, the organism may be better off or worse off, or stay the same. If they are better off, then we can make it simple and think that natural selection will select those mutated organisms and the trait gets more common.

You can also have genetic drift or flow, whereby the organism moves (the simplest way). They may move to another population and breed there. If they are compatable enough, you probably will find the progeny have a different anatomy and/or physiology.

There are other methods, however, the outlined ones are the simplest.

As for evolution, there is much evidence supporting it. Granted, it does have its flaws but then again, it is a theory. Science is based predominantly on theories, it's not perfect, a theory, the very definition of it, implies imperfection. As for the supporting evidence, this ranges from DNA analysis, finding various fossilized remains that share many similarities with what would be that organism's ancestor/descendants, etc... .

It is great that you show such interest in evolution and biology in general, and as you learn more, you'll understand more of how it works. However, look up a bit more on the theory of evolution and you need to understand biology is an integrative science, that is the anatomy and physiology occurs at the superficial level that we see down to the microbiological level down to the atomic and subatomic level. So when you go to consider how something could work, or trying to combine two things (i.e. worms and boys), you have to consider how that would function and impact the various levels. I assume you are starting up learning biology in high school, and so right now that may be difficult but just bear that in mind.

[Jean Poutine]

Because it's obvious that only atheists believe in evolution.

Ever heard about theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism?

Look how complex the eye is. All eyes work basically the same in all humans and animals. All ears work basically the same. Everyone walks basically the same. Isn’t it strange that there are not hundreds of kinds of eyes and ears that work on completely different levels? Why aren’t there people with one eye and one ear or a couple of of eyes and ears?

1) Hell no. Some animals are capable to see in colour ranges we are unable to. Some animals, like dogs, are colorblind to a degree.

2) Again - hell no. Unless you mean that fishes listen to us open the door, and not the subtle vibrations spread across the water when we enter the room.

3) Sure, all dogs walk the same too. Bipedal motricity was an evolution peculiar to our species that allowed us to use tools. Your point?

4) You haven't paid attention in class. Evolutions are based out of a need to interact better with the environment and/or survive better. Unless you think that having one eye and one ear less is better suited to surviving as a species, your point is, well, pretty much non-existant.

Could someone believe that almost all baby dinosaurs died of starvation for billions of years as they were pulling at their mothers’ chests figuring milk might come out of them one day. Finally after another few billion years they pulled so much they developed into bumps which decided to produce milk to make the baby dinosaurs happy. After another few billion years these bumps got their act straight and decided the time they should start to grow is when a girl can start having babies. These bumps decided only to grow to a size that is conformable for the baby and then they stop growing.
That's something right out of a peyote trip. I'm sorry but you do not make sense at all.

Dinosaurs never needed to give milk to their babies. Simply because the reproductive methods of their animal reign does not include it. This is something they did not need and thus they didn't evolve this specific trait. Dinosaurs did not have mammary glands as mammals do.

Tip : mammary - mammal. Same root.

Why can’t people cross bread with animals or fruits? Why aren’t there applewomen and wormboys?
Observe animal cells and plant cells with a microscope. If you do not notice (a lot of) differences, then...yeah.

Take just any one organ and it is so so amazing, please tell me all you atheists how there are so so many things each one by itself is vertically impossible to have developed by itself, besides for all the misfits that we don’t see around!!
Vertically as opposed to horizontally? (sorry, had to do it)

Who is to decide what is and isn't impossible to develop randomly? You?

If I programmed a computer to produce random numbers to the 10,000th decimal every second and it randomly stumbled on the exact decimals used by pi until the 10,000th, are you going to tell me that it's an act of God?

By the way, I'm not an atheist.

[Koman]

Well first lets start by learning etiquette, lets try renaming this post to "athiests..." you are assuming that people who consider themselves athiest are infact dilusional and not.

Next, i have a question for you. What proof do you have that evolution doesnt/didnt exist.

[Trickster]

Im not athiests but im not a complete christian. I think more scientifically and differently.

Yet in theroy people can become apple women. Before we could think and act and do we were molecules with no mind. Apples are made of that too, molecules. Things adapt to enviroment and surrounding. If an apple tree is too tall the next one will make it smaller. If all the apples cannot seem to make anymore of itself by doing the usual cycle. The apples will become different. Being born means being differnt. If semen can fertilize a apple seed, it will slowly take on human traits most likely the first time it will do nothing but maybe last longer, but eventually a red juciy person could be..well ..born/made? I know many laws of nature dont follow its own rules because well IT REALLY DOESNT HAVE ANY! Nature is random it doesnt follow anything and nobody. But it does have an instinct, it needs to survive and if needs to live on by using human seeds then it probably will

[Commander Thor]

Im not athiests but im not a complete christian. I think more scientifically and differently.

Yet in theroy people can become apple women. Before we could think and act and do we were molecules with no mind.

So are rocks..... Oh and dirt too!

Apples are made of that too, molecules.
But these molecules make up larger structures, without them making larger structures (Cell walls, DNA, ect) there would be no life, no apples, no humans, no apple trees.

Things adapt to enviroment and surrounding. If an apple tree is too tall the next one will make it smaller.
You make it sound like the next tree decides to be shorter?
If the tree is too tall, it will not survive to bear fruit, or not be able to bear fruit. Thus not allowing the genes that code for a tall tree to be passed on to the next generation.

If all the apples cannot seem to make anymore of itself by doing the usual cycle. The apples will become different.
The apples just won't become different. That's creationist. Things just don't 'become'. Apples that have a mutation, that allow it to survive in different environments will survive, and pass their genes onto the next generation, those that don't survive will not. But the apples just don't decide one day that they're going to become different.

Being born means being differnt.
Err.... Explain please.

If semen can fertilize a apple seed, it will slowly take on human traits most likely the first time it will do nothing but maybe last longer, but eventually a red juciy person could be..well ..born/made?
It is IMPOSSIBLE for semen to fertilize an apple seed.
The number of chromosomes are different.
It's a different species.
It's in a ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KINGDOM!
Also, a seed cotains billions upon billions of individual cells. Sperm is single-celled.
And, a seed is already fertilized, it just waits for conditions to become favorable before it germinates.

I know many laws of nature dont follow its own rules because well IT REALLY DOESNT HAVE ANY! Nature is random it doesnt follow anything and nobody. But it does have an instinct, it needs to survive and if needs to live on by using human seeds then it probably will
Nature has laws, nature has rules.
Nature always follows it's laws, nature usually follows it's rules.
Nature DOES NOT have an instinct. It is not living, it cannot think.
Life has a will to surivive. If an organism can survive in a hostile environment, it will pass it's genes onto the next generation.

Please read up on the modern evolutionary therory before you start posting stuff. (Not directed at the person I quoted, it's directed at everyone)

[Koman]

Im not athiests but im not a complete christian. I think more scientifically and differently.

Yet in theroy people can become apple women. Before we could think and act and do we were molecules with no mind. Apples are made of that too, molecules. Things adapt to enviroment and surrounding. If an apple tree is too tall the next one will make it smaller. If all the apples cannot seem to make anymore of itself by doing the usual cycle. The apples will become different. Being born means being differnt. If semen can fertilize a apple seed, it will slowly take on human traits most likely the first time it will do nothing but maybe last longer, but eventually a red juciy person could be..well ..born/made? I know many laws of nature dont follow its own rules because well IT REALLY DOESNT HAVE ANY! Nature is random it doesnt follow anything and nobody. But it does have an instinct, it needs to survive and if needs to live on by using human seeds then it probably will

Humans and dogs and ipods all use electrons to power themselves. Maybe if i inceminatee my ipod and had my inserted it in a dogs vagina i could create chewbaca with a ipod for a face.

[INFERNO]

First, I'd suggest that you (XxNeijxX) read up on your biology and science in general.


Yet in theroy people can become apple women.

In theory people cannot. As I and others have mentioned, the two are so drastically different they are no compatible and this will never happen not in theory nor in practice. I'm curious as to why you think they can.


Before we could think and act and do we were molecules with no mind.

Molecules have no minds. However, everything began from something simpler, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.


Apples are made of that too, molecules.

That they are, however, look at how the molecules are arranged, what they make, the anatomy and physiology of us versus an apple. Just because we have molecules and apples have molecules does NOT mean that magically we can start having applewomen and applemen running around town.


If an apple tree is too tall the next one will make it smaller.

You make it sound like the tree has an obligation, a decision to make the tall tree smaller. The trees will compete for sunlight, nutrients from the ground, etc..., however, the smaller one will not suddenly chop down the tall one.


If all the apples cannot seem to make anymore of itself by doing the usual cycle. The apples will become different.

That or there are just no apples :yes:


Being born means being differnt.

Different as in from an apple tree reproducing? Yes, that's true. Each person is genetically and anatomically unique, even if the differences are not noticable right away.


If semen can fertilize a apple seed, it will slowly take on human traits most likely the first time it will do nothing but maybe last longer, but eventually a red juciy person could be..well ..born/made?

... NO. This is perfect for a sci-fi book or movie but that's about it. If you put semen on the apple seed, then the apple seed will not get human traits. I'm curious as to your reasoning for why it should make a human.


I know many laws of nature dont follow its own rules because well IT REALLY DOESNT HAVE ANY! Nature is random it doesnt follow anything and nobody. But it does have an instinct, it needs to survive and if needs to live on by using human seeds then it probably will

This is also completely wrong. Nature, as in trees, flowers, etc... have no instinct. Nature does follow its own rules or else you'd see utter chaos everywhere. You'd probably see applewomen and pumpkinmen strolling around town with their friends, Mr. Potatohead and Mrs. Spinachgoatbirdpooplady.

PLEASE read up on your basic science as... well it's almost non-existent:lol:

[Number02]

It's in a ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KINGDOM!



Perhaps it should be noted that Kingdoms, Phylums, Classes, Orders, Families and Species are Man-Made categorisations?

[INFERNO]

Perhaps it should be noted that Kingdoms, Phylums, Classes, Orders, Families and Species are Man-Made categorisations?

And your point is?

[Number02]

*shrugs*

Just that since they're man-made, they're subject to change. I'm not saying that apples will be reclassified as mammals anytime soon, just that we should be aware that Classification as such is no concrete thing.

[INFERNO]

*shrugs*

Just that since they're man-made, they're subject to change. I'm not saying that apples will be reclassified as mammals anytime soon, just that we should be aware that Classification as such is no concrete thing.

While this is true, I doubt they'd be drastically changed. The economy may be headed for the shitter, many incompetent and stupid people exist today especially in powerful positions, however, I don't think that science is about to follow in the footsteps of utter stupidity.

[Number02]

Well I doubt it too, I'd just thought I'd make it clear that they're subject to change, that's all.

And let's face it, stupider things are being done, so you never know.

[Sapphire]

Jimy, to suggest (as you are) that with time the differences between animals and plants will lessen to such a degree that they will no longer be classed as belonging to separate kingdoms is preposterous.

Yes, they are man-made concepts but they are based on real, tangible differences. Stupidity can't change that.
Animals in general are breeding and surviving well. Plants in general are also reproducing and surviving well. Why would either need to adapt to be more like the other?

[Number02]

You don't get me. I was merely pointing out that they are liable to change. Nowhere near as drastically as you seem to think, but change nevertheless. I'm not deluded you know.

[Sapphire]

Everything is liable to some degree of change so I fail to see your point.

[Number02]

Well I apologise for wasting your time with my concepts

[/sarcasm]

[Sapphire]

God. What's that attitude for?

[Whisper]

First of all Jimy you are more then welcome to state your opinion


I see this more as a linguist dispute than anything else really
were getting caught up on the definition of "theory"
in the scientific world "theory" means a hypothesis that has a great deal of proven empical evidence behind it
in lamins terms it simply means an idea with little to no solid evidence of support

They're mixing the two up

God. What's that attitude for?

Whats yours for?
and was this necessary?
Did it contribute to the well being or production of the debate at all?

[Sapphire]

I see this more as a linguist dispute than anything else really
were getting caught up on the definition of "theory"
in the scientific world "theory" means a hypothesis that has a great deal of proven empical evidence behind it
in lamins terms it simply means an idea with little to no solid evidence of support

They're mixing the two upA theory is a "an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena" [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory] (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory%5D)
And, in science nothing is held as fact. All you have is theory waiting to be disproved. This is called falsifiability and is seen in every single aspect of science.
An example is that it was once fact that arteries carry air to the different parts of the body. The study of the arteries of dead animals (which appeared to be empty) was the basis of this. It was only through the experiments of Galen that this was disproved.

Whats yours for?
and was this necessary?
Did it contribute to the well being or production of the debate at all?I hardly see me questioning why he got his knickers in a knot as being evidence of me having a attitude.
Anyway, he and I have since resolved the issue. That should be the end of it.

[Sage]

A theory is a "an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena" [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory] (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory%5D)
And, in science nothing is held as fact. All you have is theory waiting to be disproved. This is called falsifiability and is seen in every single aspect of science.

A point I'd like to add, a theory that cannot be falsified is not accepted as a theory. This is the main reason things like the Intelligent Design movement are shot down- Because you cannot prove nor disproved divine intervention.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

And, in science nothing is held as fact. All you have is theory waiting to be disproved.


Really? So... we don't consider it a fact that things fall down? That its a fact that when you drop an object, its not going to fly up into the sky and out of the solar system? The THEORY that explains evidence and observable fact in this case would be the theory of gravity. Theories are MUCH more important than individual facts; a scientific theory is a model which takes into consideration ALL of the facts and evidence we have compiled, and explains WHAT the facts are showing us. The facts that we find different species in different rock layers corresponding to their geological age is a FACT (have you ever found human bones in the same layer of rock as a T Rex?). Its one of the many, many facts that point towards evolution being a correct theory. If this theory was immediately falsifiable (like Deschain said) then it would not be the accepted theory for the diversity of life. Since Intellgent Design is just creationism in a lab coat, and it provides NOTHING of value (no predictions, no hypotheses etc.) it will NOT be accepted as a "competing" theory. Compared to evolution, which has stood the test of time (over 150 years) without ANY contradictory evidence putting the theory into question so far is the BEST theory we've got. When you falsify evolution, or have a testible, non-falsifiable theory that trumps evolution, then we'll go back to the drawing board.

[MoveAlong]

Perhaps it should be noted that Kingdoms, Phylums, Classes, Orders, Families and Species are Man-Made categorisations?

It doesn't matter it could change, because that is only the classification of the organism. The fact is that apples and people are so different they cannot breed. That is also the argument so it's keeping on topic.

:)

jeeze.

A point I'd like to add, a theory that cannot be falsified is not accepted as a theory. This is the main reason things like the Intelligent Design movement are shot down- Because you cannot prove nor disproved divine intervention.

^^Continuing that discussion, I believe that religion is faith, not fact, so therefore it can be hard to believe or disproved just as easily as science, Sapphire.

[Sapphire]

I never stated that evolution is wrong or that creationism. I am being very scientific in my argument and I fail to see why people are talking to me as if I am not. To clear something up, I'm not talking about religion as you can't even begin to start testing it.

I have pointed out that in science you can't prove something to be true, all you can do is disprove everything else. I thought I had illustrated this clearly enough with the example I gave which by the looks of it none of you have actually read.

This link takes you to an excerpt from Karl Popper's work. It contains his explanation of theories and the need for falisification.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

Thatcanadianguy, as I have already said, nothing in science is fact. At one point it would have been considered fact that all animals see through their eyes. That was turned on it's head by the realisation that moles and bats are blind while still having eyes.
Observing something fall when we let go of it is a piece of collabatory evidence for the theory of gravity. But when you take things to the quantum level the theory of gravity falls apart.

EDIT
When you falsify evolution, or have a testible, non-falsifiable theory that trumps evolution, then we'll go back to the drawing board.
Surely you mean a falsifiable theory since non-falsifiable theories cannot be tested.

[INFERNO]

Really? So... we don't consider it a fact that things fall down? That its a fact that when you drop an object, its not going to fly up into the sky and out of the solar system? The THEORY that explains evidence and observable fact in this case would be the theory of gravity. Theories are MUCH more important than individual facts; a scientific theory is a model which takes into consideration ALL of the facts and evidence we have compiled, and explains WHAT the facts are showing us. The facts that we find different species in different rock layers corresponding to their geological age is a FACT (have you ever found human bones in the same layer of rock as a T Rex?). Its one of the many, many facts that point towards evolution being a correct theory. If this theory was immediately falsifiable (like Deschain said) then it would not be the accepted theory for the diversity of life. Since Intellgent Design is just creationism in a lab coat, and it provides NOTHING of value (no predictions, no hypotheses etc.) it will NOT be accepted as a "competing" theory. Compared to evolution, which has stood the test of time (over 150 years) without ANY contradictory evidence putting the theory into question so far is the BEST theory we've got. When you falsify evolution, or have a testible, non-falsifiable theory that trumps evolution, then we'll go back to the drawing board.

It is an observation that things fall down. However, the science behind things falling down provides information that is not a fact. Why? Because science is based on theories to explain events. Gravity is not a fact. It may be taken as a fact, however, it is not.

Yes, different species are found in different layers, that is an observation or if you wish to call it, a fact. But, what explains that observation (the science) is not a fact.

Your last line is a contradiction: non-falsifiable theories, as they cannot exist.

A scientific theory explains WHY something occurs, HOW it occurs, what makes it occur, etc... . It uses already-known information to explain what you are examining. If you have a data set, you can see what it shows you but interpreting that information in a meaningful way regarding what you are examining is where you apply the scientific theory.

[growingjudy]

All eyes, ears, noses, breasts and penises are not exactly the same, but they are similar enough. Bigger ones and smaller ones also can work well. If they are not exactly at that spot they also are okay. It is too fascinating that everyone is as uniform as they are, to say they developed that way by themselves.
Also I was thinking that if I would throw bottles of ink from the top of buildings for millions of years, I imagine that the chances that it will make one sentence is probably one in a few billion if not less. And that is nothing compared to one organ of one little animal. Where did nature get its brain from that it needs to exist! And then this brain made all these complex things.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU CAN BELIEVE IN A THEORY WITH CHANCES THAT EACH THING BY ITSELF IN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS IS ALMOST IMPOSIBLE THAT IT HAPPENED - IF NOT MUCH LESS THAN THAT!!
Also where are the fossils of the misfits? There must be billions of them? What about black magic, it does work, where does a soul come into evolution?

[Sapphire]

All eyes, ears, noses, breasts and penises are not exactly the same, but they are similar enoughWhat are you basing this on? They certainly aren't similar enough in function. Otherwise bats and moles would be able to see and you wouldn't get animals with worse/better vision than us.

Secondly, nature doesn't have a brain. Animals are the ones that have brains. And the brain didn't "make" all these complex things. They are also not needed for life to be found on this planet. This is all especially so when considering that the most complex cells are those found in organisms with only a few cells and no brain to speak of. Also, plants don't have brains and can still survive.

I can believe in evolution because there is evidence to support it. It's better than God's existence and Creationism which has none. Everywhere we look there is evidence of it happening. The peppered moth has evolved recently enough for it to have been observed and recorded. http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Peppered_moth.asp

Black magic works? Lol. Ok, you just lost all credit in this discussion as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could show us a video of you producing something through black magic.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU CAN BELIEVE IN A THEORY WITH CHANCES THAT EACH THING BY ITSELF IN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS IS ALMOST IMPOSIBLE THAT IT HAPPENED - IF NOT MUCH LESS THAN THAT!!
Also where are the fossils of the misfits? There must be billions of them? What about black magic, it does work, where does a soul come into evolution?

Arguments from improbability... black magic? What?!

The soul comes "nowhere" into evolution. It's a natural process, not a supernatural one. Well, there's no evidence that souls exist at all (humans or otherwise) and the same goes for black magic. Seriously.

[INFERNO]

OK, your post was all over the place and I suggest you read up on basic biology and evolution because these posts show you're going headfirst into something you do not understand.

All eyes, ears, noses, breasts and penises are not exactly the same, but they are similar enough.

Explain this, how are they "similar enough"? What properties or characteristics (anatomical or physiological or both or evolutionary) make them similar enough?


Also I was thinking that if I would throw bottles of ink from the top of buildings for millions of years, I imagine that the chances that it will make one sentence is probably one in a few billion if not less.
And that is nothing compared to one organ of one little animal. Where did nature get its brain from that it needs to exist! And then this brain made all these complex things.

Nature is not one living being, it has no brain, no arms, no legs, etc... . I'm not sure what connection you're trying to make with the bottles of ink and the organ of a little animal. The bottles of ink are randomly thrown, each one is independent of the next, that is, where you throw one has no influence over where the other one is. But for the animal, that is not the case. For starters, the organ and its development is dependent on other organs, environment, etc..., and does not stay or evolve randomly.


PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU CAN BELIEVE IN A THEORY WITH CHANCES THAT EACH THING BY ITSELF IN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS IS ALMOST IMPOSIBLE THAT IT HAPPENED - IF NOT MUCH LESS THAN THAT!!

Please explain what you are talking about.


Also where are the fossils of the misfits? There must be billions of them?

Are the "misfits" the ancestors? Many fossils of many species have been discovered, however, although there probably are fossils of other organisms, we must first find where they are and extract them. Since the fossils don't have a neat and tidy tag saying "Hello, I am a fossil of the leg of a T-rex" or whatever else, we must figure out just what the fossil is of. That is not an easy task because we have to work backwards and figure out what the incomplete pieces are.


What about black magic, it does work, where does a soul come into evolution?

Now you're stringing things together randomly. Evolution uses a biological paradigm (or an evolutionary paradigm rather if you wish to get more specific). Black magic and the soul are not part of these paradigms, and so they will not be taken into consideration when talking about evolution from these paradigms.

[Oblivion]

All eyes, ears, noses, breasts and penises are not exactly the same, but they are similar enough. Bigger ones and smaller ones also can work well. If they are not exactly at that spot they also are okay. It is too fascinating that everyone is as uniform as they are, to say they developed that way by themselves.
Erm.. Hate to break it to you, but this is utter nonsense. Bodily functions and senses are very very different from animal to animal, and completely different from kingdom to kingdom.
Also I was thinking that if I would throw bottles of ink from the top of buildings for millions of years, I imagine that the chances that it will make one sentence is probably one in a few billion if not less. And that is nothing compared to one organ of one little animal. Where did nature get its brain from that it needs to exist! And then this brain made all these complex things.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU CAN BELIEVE IN A THEORY WITH CHANCES THAT EACH THING BY ITSELF IN THE CHAIN OF EVENTS IS ALMOST IMPOSIBLE THAT IT HAPPENED - IF NOT MUCH LESS THAN THAT!!
It's been billions of years of adaptions. There are no brains, just needs and demands.
Also where are the fossils of the misfits? There must be billions of them? What about black magic, it does work, where does a soul come into evolution?
Where did black magic come from?! Oh wow, I can hardly expect you to believe in evolution if you believe in black magic. And there are misfit fossils... That's why they died.

You did read my previous post right?

OK, so supposedly, the Concorde jet has less than a one in a billion chance of crashing. If it did crash, would you say it never happened?

[Number02]

The chances of Concorde crashing are even less than that now ;)

As illustrated before, Evolution depends on tiny random mistakes and mutations during meiosis (creation of gametes), and so the offspring will have a mutation that may enhance or inhibit their life. If this mutation were to enhance their life, this new gene would then pass on through the generations, until the old gene has dided away, and the new one is dominant. Thus the Black Peppered Moth, as mentioned somewhere above.

[chris__robin]

the theory of evolution doesn't just depend on genetic mutation ... there's a lot to do with the environment/habitat/biotic/abiotic factors around the population or community of organisms.

i can't really be bothered trying to explain evolution because heaps of people here have done a great job at doing this, but people keep saying things that .... are just wrong, and i don't know i hate thinking people will read their posts and get the wrong impression.

if all else fails, most textbooks will cover this topic. i have an evolutionary biology textbook which is dedicated to the subject when i studied this at uni.

i dont understand why the poster calls us athiests? you can be religious and still follow scientific theory, the two are separate areas.

ive read the original post about dropping ink from a building about 5 times ... i don't understand what hes trying to say ... i cant follow his arguement!

[INFERNO]

As illustrated before, Evolution depends on tiny random mistakes and mutations during meiosis (creation of gametes), and so the offspring will have a mutation that may enhance or inhibit their life. If this mutation were to enhance their life, this new gene would then pass on through the generations, until the old gene has dided away, and the new one is dominant. Thus the Black Peppered Moth, as mentioned somewhere above.

Evolution depends not only on mutations, it depends on a variety of other processes (i.e. natural selection, gene flow, etc...).


ive read the original post about dropping ink from a building about 5 times ... i don't understand what hes trying to say ... i cant follow his arguement!

The argument with dropping the ink is somewhat confusing. From what I got out of it, it is going along the lines of where the ink is dropped is random, as is evolution. Also, where the ink is dropped is independent of where previous and future ones will be dropped, as is evolution. The problem is that both of these are false when it comes to evolution and so the two assumptions for this argument both are false, hence, the argument is inapplicable and makes little sense. This would be mainly due to a complete misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

[growingjudy]

Black magic is real. I know people that spoke to the dead. Don't think otherwise. About fossils, if there was such a transformation over zillions of years, there must be billions of fossils. Wherever you dig, there should be piles of them saying 'hello'.

[Sage]

Black magic is real. I know people that spoke to the dead. Don't think otherwise.

Testimony is worthless in a debate.

About fossils, if there was such a transformation over zillions of years, there must be billions of fossils. Wherever you dig, there should be piles of them saying 'hello'.

It takes very specific conditions for bones to become fossilized. Go do your research.

[Oblivion]

Testimony is worthless in a debate.



It takes very specific conditions for bones to become fossilized. Go do your research.

Yep. Over billions of years, most bones deteriorate; they are after all organic substances. Only a small portion of remains have the exact right conditions to be fossilized. Otherwise, they are eaten by decomposers, or naturally deteriorated by nature.

And about black magic... Really? You believe everything you hear?

Hey, yesterday, I fell off a step stool in my kitchen, but instead of falling, I sprouted wings and flew away. Do you believe in flying people now? No, I wouldn't expect you too.

[INFERNO]

Black magic is real. I know people that spoke to the dead. Don't think otherwise. About fossils, if there was such a transformation over zillions of years, there must be billions of fossils. Wherever you dig, there should be piles of them saying 'hello'.

OK, you really don't understand the basics of science... .

I can speak to the dead also, I can find a dead bird or just go to a grave, and presto, I'm talking to the dead. One can easily feign that the dead spirits or whatever are talking back. But aside from knowing someone talked to the dead, I have a few questions:

1) Did the dead talk back? If so, how do you know it wasn't him/her making it up in a realistic way?
2) Do you have any other reasons for believing in it, aside from the person talking to the dead? Can you talk to the dead and can the dead talk back to you?
3) Would you believe someone talking to a toad and claiming that the toad talked back? If so, why? If not, why, and what is the difference between this and your reason you gave for believing in black magic?

You're free to believe whatever you wish, however, I'm curious on those outlined things.

The problem is the environment doesn't always preserve fossils in a very neat and nice way. Also, they fall apart over time. There may indeed by billions of fossils, however, how many have not deteriorated, how many can we make sense of once we find them, how many are intact in some way, etc... . Not all of them are nicely intact. Over those billions of years, how many opportunities are there for other organisms to break them down or for the environment to not preserve them in a very usable way? Quite a lot.

[lamboman43]

Yep. Over billions of years, most bones deteriorate; they are after all organic substances. Only a small portion of remains have the exact right conditions to be fossilized. Otherwise, they are eaten by decomposers, or naturally deteriorated by nature.

And about black magic... Really? You believe everything you hear?

Hey, yesterday, I fell off a step stool in my kitchen, but instead of falling, I sprouted wings and flew away. Do you believe in flying people now? No, I wouldn't expect you too.

Coming from you, I might believe you can fly :P

[growingjudy]

I can't buy the idea that all the billions of fossils disappeared or call it decomposed.As far As bringing back souls with black magic, ask those that did it. They speak to souls that they never knew and then afterwards they find out about them. Find out. But I don't want to disturb the worshipers of the god of evolution, especialy the real religious ones.

[Sapphire]

I can't buy the idea that all the billions of fossils disappeared or call it decomposed.As far As bringing back souls with black magic, ask those that did it. They speak to souls that they never knew and then afterwards they find out about them. Find out. But I don't want to disturb the worshipers of the god of evolution, especialy the real religious ones.This talks about the process of fossilisation and the conditions that must be present for it to occur http://www.ukfossils.co.uk/guides/how%20fossils%20formed.htm

Hmm. Or they find out about certain deceased individuals and con people into believing that they are actually conversing with said deceased individual. It happens.

Why do you believe in black magic but not what science can tell us?

[Oblivion]

I can't buy the idea that all the billions of fossils disappeared or call it decomposed.As far As bringing back souls with black magic, ask those that did it. They speak to souls that they never knew and then afterwards they find out about them. Find out. But I don't want to disturb the worshipers of the god of evolution, especialy the real religious ones.

Have you ever left out a fruit too long? What does it do? It breaks down, and starts to decompose. Just like bones. They don't last forever unless they have the right conditions of clay, mud, etc. to preserve the bones.

God of evolution? Souls? Black magic?
I have no idea what you are talking about, it's really rather confusing.
I don't quite understand why you believe what a friend told you rather than what thousands of well educated scientists discovered.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I can't buy the idea that all the billions of fossils disappeared or call it decomposed.As far As bringing back souls with black magic, ask those that did it. They speak to souls that they never knew and then afterwards they find out about them. Find out. But I don't want to disturb the worshipers of the god of evolution, especialy the real religious ones.

You can't buy the idea out of ignorance; you refuse to understand reality, and in the mean time have done a horrible job of defending your claim about "soul speaking". Calling evolution a "religion" with a "god" is just plain dumb, seeing as you don't have a clue about it.

[INFERNO]

I can't buy the idea that all the billions of fossils disappeared or call it decomposed.As far As bringing back souls with black magic, ask those that did it. They speak to souls that they never knew and then afterwards they find out about them. Find out. But I don't want to disturb the worshipers of the god of evolution, especialy the real religious ones.

PLEASE, I'm about to beg you, LEARN and READ UP on evolution and basic science.

I don't understand why you cant at least learn about evolution and basic science before you make such sweeping statements. It's one thing to disagree for a reason but you don't seem to understand what you're disagreeing about.

"God of evolution"... "real religious ones".... . Science is not a religion and religion is not a science. You're now showing lack of understanding for both of them.

Instead of you telling us to learn about black magic, why don't you tell us about it? What I don't understand is, someone like yourself has immense curiousity about biology and science, yet you have no clue on what evolution is and you are ignorant of it but instead resort to black magic... .

I'd like to answer you more but... I'm having a hard time figuring out where you're coming from.... .

[Bougainvillea]

Hey, evolution takes many, MANY years. But someday, I'm sure there will be a change. We just have to wait

[Sapphire]

Hey, evolution takes many, MANY years. But someday, I'm sure there will be a change. We just have to wait
We don't have to wait to see evolution at work. It has already been observed in peppered moths.

[Commander Thor]

We don't have to wait to see evolution at work. It has already been observed in peppered moths.

And the fact that most bacterias are now resistant to most forms of penicillin.

[Number02]

.. Hence MRSA, that would be a classic case of modern evolution :D

[scuba steve]

life itself is far-fetched! i mean have you never had those moments were your just sittin there wonderin y the hell you are here and what will become of you after death. it's in the same boat only evolution has been proven to a result and would take an extremely great scientific breakthrough to prove it wrong

[Sage]

life itself is far-fetched! i mean have you never had those moments were your just sittin there wonderin y the hell you are here and what will become of you after death. it's in the same boat only evolution has been proven to a result and would take an extremely great scientific breakthrough to prove it wrong

*sigh* No. The Theory of Evolution has no philosophical implications. It can explain how you were born and why you are physically the way you are, but it has no sort of "purpose" nor does it say what happens to "you" after you die.

[Bougainvillea]

Yes. You are correct. But he was talking about life itself. He was just a little off subject :P

[scuba steve]

yea soz im just kind of a daydreamer lol