Proof of Evolution

[ymmak]

Vomiting out everything we know seems perfectly fnie to me. What else are we to do anyway? None of us have the real answers. If we did, we wouldn't be posting here; we'd be collecting Nobel Prizes.

Yup, none of us have the real answers, but your earlier post seems to suggest that you are pretty certain that God doesnt exist, and evolution is clearly superior to creationism. I have no issue with where you stand, but I will be honest with you: I have an issue with your arrogant, know-it-all attitude. Your haughty and unconstructive comments does not make you any superior than any of the other forumers who posted before you, and your mockery of those elusive "some" makes you no different from the primates which you have described.

 

[growlingsoulpup]

and that is really important in the context of this topic.

Sorry, I'm pcw-ing. *shrugs.

 

[evident]

Morlock did post quite an interesting find even though he didn't quote his sources (you really should, it's obvious you didn't write it). but neither did predz. all he did was vomit out some information and then ask us to go to youtube and wiki (the most credible of all sources).

some people accuse others of trying to pass creationism off as science, while they themselves say evolutionism is science. the only reason why it's accepted as science is because it is godless and natural. but it's still an unsubstantiated theory nonetheless..

it's amazing how when people are faced with questions they cannot answer they totally disregard it as "non-credible sources", divert attention to things that don't matter (like say, plagarism), or just totally imagine the person didn't post it at all.

with regards to the whales thing, tell me something. why would creatures after adapting out of the water to live on land, adapt back into the water? if evolution happens to increase survival, then why would they leave water and go back in if that's what you're talking about? after all they spent "millions of years" getting out of the water.

ymmak has pretty much said what was on my mind, and what i've been trying to say all along.

and just to quote you predz..

Why would a designer design teeth, hair, nostrils and legs, just to be abandoned later? This means they still have the genes from their ancestors

and i ask, why would creatures evolve to have teeth, hair, nostrils and legs, just to be abandoned later? This means that perhaps it's some designer who designed them for purposes that we probably don't know now.

 

[predz23]

Sorry, I do not mean inbreeding, but something more complex like land-dwelling mammals to whale, you get what I mean? As mentioned in one of my earliest post, inbreeding, eugenics, selective breeding, are not something new, and all these can cause an evolution of a specie, and these subtle, non-drastic evolution, I have already (for the 9999999th times) agree with. What I am refering to is a well-documented experiment, witness or observation, of a drastic evolution from one organism to another, similar to the example of land-dwelling mammals to whales.

It works EXACTLY the same way. The evolution is not drastic if it took more than 50 milllion years. Theres no way one big brick can become the pyramid of Giza, but with time....*dramatic face*

Good, you havent heard of it, but I have. Now if someone makes such a claim, will you agree? I have already mentioned that I do not agree (maybe due to my stubborness). I have already on numerous times, expressed my opinion that a drastic extent of evolution is not possible, that is merely how I feel, you may not agree, but do you have to disagree and attempt to convince me otherwise everytime I post? Looks like you are also a very persistent and hardheaded person. BTW, I will be glad to learn more examples or facts, so far contributions to this thread has been a good read.

I want to reply all the time, its fun. Unless you have evidence AGAINST the evolution of whales from land mammals, then "I don't think such a drastic change is possible" is not really a good answer

I guess pretty many so-called creationists here have not attempted to force their religion on you. At least, I have not. So please try to refrain from disproving creationism in this thread. By trying to outrightly disprove creationism, you are behaving like those creationists (whom you detest) who insisted that creation is science.

lol they kinda forced their religion on me too by insisting evolution is untrue and creationism is right. How would you react to someone that said the holocaust never happened? I don't think by disproving creationism I'm behaving the same way like them by 'forcing my belief' unto them. I see myself as the historian to the conspiracy theorist, the geographer to flat-earther, the rational one to the superstitious one

 

[evident]

do humor me predz

21 pages and my questions still remain unanswered..

edit:

oh predz, can one big brick really become the pyramid of Giza? a pyramid is formed by several tiny bricks, and is almost uniform on all 4 sides of it. unless environmental conditions "attack" all 4 sides of the brick EQUALLY, and cause a uniform degradation of the giant brick into a pyramid shaped construction, it still wouldn't account for how one big brick become several tiny bricks. one would look at a pyramid and conclude that someone built it, not that it appeared out of chance. do you agree?

 

[Vaiyen]

Evident:

even though it is wiki, this article is really scientific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth

 

[taypeng81]

predz its not possible to add dna to your genome sequence like bricks to a pyramid. it doesnt work that way.

 

[predz23]

and just to quote you predz..



and i ask, why would creatures evolve to have teeth, hair, nostrils and legs, just to be abandoned later? This means that perhaps it's some designer who designed them for purposes that we probably don't know now.

Yeah they were abandoned IN THE WOMB, considering all the ancient whale fossils discovered, it makes more sense that these are remnants of their past. And when making assumptions based on no evidence, why stop there? how do you know they aren't alien designs? how do you know they aren't a design for coming back on land to take over the world?

 

[growlingsoulpup]

lol they kinda forced their religion on me too by insisting evolution is untrue and creationism is right. How would you react to someone that said the holocaust never happened? I don't think by disproving creationism I'm behaving the same way like them by 'forcing my belief' unto them. I see myself as the historian to the conspiracy theorist, the geographer to flat-earther, the rational one to the superstitious one

Okay, saying that the Earth was created by a giant fairy in the sky is not really the same as saying that the murder of millions of innocent people never happened.

 

[evident]

Yeah they were abandoned IN THE WOMB, considering all the ancient whale fossils discovered, it makes more sense that these are remnants of their past. And when making assumptions based on no evidence, why stop there? how do you know they aren't alien designs? how do you know they aren't a design for coming back on land to take over the world?

i know what you meant when you say embryology, i naturally assumed they were abandoned in "egg" form. what i meant by "only to be abandoned" later was that why would evolution cause creatures to evolve out of the water, onto land, grow teeth, blah blah blah, and then evolve back into the water and lose all these again? i'm not making assumptions based on no evidence, i was being sarcastic because you asked a question YOU couldn't answer and then came to a conclusion that it must have happened because of "insert your quote here". so i was just being sarcastic...my original question was posted pre-quote.

 

[predz23]

predz its not possible to add dna to your genome sequence like bricks to a pyramid. it doesnt work that way.

do humor me predz

21 pages and my questions still remain unanswered..

edit:

oh predz, can one big brick really become the pyramid of Giza? a pyramid is formed by several tiny bricks, and is almost uniform on all 4 sides of it. unless environmental conditions "attack" all 4 sides of the brick EQUALLY, and cause a uniform degradation of the giant brick into a pyramid shaped construction, it still wouldn't account for how one big brick become several tiny bricks. one would look at a pyramid and conclude that someone built it, not that it appeared out of chance. do you agree?

you both completely missed my point. I was trying to say that whales evolving from land mammals is not very drastic because it took over 50 million years. And yes I look at the pyramid and agree it was built, but looking at an animal claiming it was designed is far fetched, because the designs are terrible, they go wrong all the time and the designs are inefficient. pyramids cannot make offspring with other pyramids to pass down their genes to.
No scientist has ever claimed that evolution adds genes to the already existing DNA, like mammals evolving gills. thats why dolphins and whales have lungs not gills

 

[evident]

Evident:

even though it is wiki, this article is really scientific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth

it's really scientific, i can tell. it assumes that everything scientists say are facts and they don't give opposing viewpoints. it's rather biased. it's hard to find articles that are neutral and show both sides, that's why we have to find articles from both sides and compare. so given the stuff presented by Morlock, further up..what do you have to say regarding the age of the earth?

in both sides there are naturally some things they do not account for, but in order to form opinions of ourselves that actually matter, we cannot only read one side of the story, but read both sides and come to a conclusion ourselves. and not just flood our minds with info from one side of the story and take it as truth..

 

[evident]

you both completely missed my point. I was trying to say that whales evolving from land mammals is not very drastic because it took over 50 million years. And yes I look at the pyramid and agree it was built, but looking at an animal claiming it was designed is far fetched, because the designs are terrible, they go wrong all the time and the designs are inefficient. pyramids cannot make offspring with other offspring to pass down their genes to.
No scientist has ever claimed that evolution adds genes to the already existing DNA, like mammals evolving gills. thats why dolphins and whales have lungs not gills

the designs are not really terrible, the fact that they are able to adapt is proof of a good design. because as the environment changes, species cannot remain the same. that is good design, though adaptation doesn't happen suddenly, it happens over a period of time. i agree that adaptation happens.

what i don't agree with is evolution. that one species like a fish, can evolve into a lizard. no scientist claims that evolution adds genes, that's because it never happens. but if genes are not added, then how does evolution happen? how does a fish grow lizard legs to become a lizard. note that adaptation, like mutation, is destructive..but evolution is creative. whales lose teeth, etc...but what you're saying fish grew legs...when fish do not have dna for legs in the first place.

whales are probably proof of adaptation but not evolution, the fact that whales cannot create gills to survive is proof that evolution doesn't happen.

edit: and i've always been asking the unanswered question of natural selection, but i'm going to ask it again. obviously if a creature adapts to the environment, it'll kill off the other less adapted creatures because when the newly adapted creature reproduces, they will impede the survival of the older species. if evolution is natural selection, that means the older species are less evolved than the newer species, fish<lizards...but if that's the case, fish would have been killed off by all the fish-lizard hybirds, which would have been killed off by lizard-fish hybrids, which would have been killed off by lizards. and you know where i'm going...so logically the world would then be 100% populated by the most evolved species..

 

[taypeng81]

predz and you miss my point also. im saying genetically its not possible for a species to take on traits/change physically outside of what their genome encodes for, even over millions of years...
this throws the whole evolution thing out of the window because it makes it impossible for a single cell or multi-cell organism to "scale-up" to the animals you have described.

its possible if there was some process that adds alot of nucleotides to the genome during replication OR there is a high rate of mutation of which both does not exist/occur. so a particular species is not able to take on a different kind of trait or anatomy that does not exist within their genome.

this is my opinion - the scientists are probably aware of this so they suggest its possible over millions of years, because that is how high the improbabilty is - close to impossible. by saying this they protect themselves also.

EDITED

 

[predz23]

the designs are not really terrible, the fact that they are able to adapt is proof of a good design. because as the environment changes, species cannot remain the same. that is good design, though adaptation doesn't happen suddenly, it happens over a period of time. i agree that adaptation happens.

good, but if a designer did design the life on this planet, he/she/it did a terrible job. a marine animal without gills? a land animal without legs?

what i don't agree with is evolution. that one species like a fish, can evolve into a lizard. no scientist claims that evolution adds genes, that's because it never happens. but if genes are not added, then how does evolution happen? how does a fish grow lizard legs to become a lizard. note that adaptation, like mutation, is destructive..but evolution is creative. whales lose teeth, etc...but what you're saying fish grew legs...when fish do not have dna for legs in the first place.

fish have fins? fins evolved into legs? Evolution doesn't add genes, you're assuming you need new genes to evolve new things. The whale doesn't have gills, it still has lungs, the whale still has bones instead of cartilage etc. you saying fish can't evolve into lizards is like saying iron ore cannot become a car. theres a huge long process in between

meet Tiktaalik

whales are probably proof of adaptation but not evolution, the fact that whales cannot create gills to survive is proof that evolution doesn't happen.

Wrong in so many ways. only because a land species has to evolve in a water environment does not mean it needs to evolve gills. Whales are proof of evolution, because evolution basically states new species arise from older species. The land dwelling mammal has evolved into a whale. is the land dwelling mammal and the whale still the same species that just 'adapted'? Evolution is not about the best design for the environment, its about the most efficient way to reproduce.

edit: and i've always been asking the unanswered question of natural selection, but i'm going to ask it again. obviously if a creature adapts to the environment, it'll kill off the other less adapted creatures because when the newly adapted creature reproduces, they will impede the survival of the older species. if evolution is natural selection, that means the older species are less evolved than the newer species, fish<lizards...but if that's the case, fish would have been killed off by all the fish-lizard hybirds, which would have been killed off by lizard-fish hybrids, which would have been killed off by lizards. and you know where i'm going...so logically the world would then be 100% populated by the most evolved species..

No dude, just no....
We still have fish, because fish live in water, the lizard-fish things started living on land. They took advantage of new places. Put a lizard in water it's gonna get owned by the fish when it comes to living in that environment. only because a new species arises doesn't necessarily mean the older species dies. What if a population gets geographically isolated? what if half of africa broke off, and drifted south closer to the south pole and the the other half remained the same place? then the new 'south africans' will evolve and adapt for the colder climate and the 'north africans' will remain the same.
new species does not equal death of older species, especially when the older species already adapted to its environment and the new species adapted to a new environment

 

[predz23]

predz and you miss my point also. im saying genetically its not possible for a species to take on traits/change physically outside of what their genome encodes for, ...

I get what you're saying, I always did. And I agree with you. And thats why I keep saying whales don't have gills.

 

[Morlock]

well Iron ore cannot become a car with out human interfering and that is a fact

 

[predz23]

well Iron ore cannot become a car with out human interfering and that is a fact

duh, but the long transitional process in between seems to get forgotten

 

[taypeng81]

yes, if whales didnt have gills, where did they come from? a land dwelling animal. good point. next qns where did the land dwelling animal come from and so on and so forth? just keep going further back, and you are presented with the problem: how did single cell/multicellular organisms become the higher mammals that we know? You mean the multicell organism somehow over time acquired genes for skin, teeth etc?

i just posted this qns to a pHD prof in my office who deals with molecular biology, these were his comments:

1. besides point mutation, viruses can add genetic sequences (to simple cellular organisms)
2. Eukaryotic cells fusing with prokaryotic cells (mitochondria). example of how symbiotic fusing could have accelerate evolution.
3. Natural selection always favors genetic stability (similar to what i mentioned)
4. Rate of mutation in higher organisms is very very low.

beyond this he has no other explanation also how multicellular organisms can take on the genes needed to "scale up" to e.g. a small rat or worm.

 

[Morlock]

How do you know that the earth is billions of years old?