Proof of Evolution

[kym]

Hey relax, even if the article was written by a creationist, it does not mean that it is not valid. It could be as scientific as those 'legitimate' scientific journal articles. We can be more open than that, can't we?

Even though the contributions to this thread is very educational, and it is intriguing and interesting to know that mankind could have evolved from apes, I think we should not be fighting over it.

What is the point of relating ourselves to primitive apes through evolution?? So what if we are descendants of primitive apes?? It is not as if primitive apes are some rich but dying tycoons, who are distributing their wealth to their kins, and if we are proven related, we can share in their inheritance.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[theliverevolution]

Creation science? Talk about oxymorons. Go back to your dungeons and start your holy wars and inquisitions! The modern world has no place for backward scum like you!

This remark would sure start a war here. You don't need to be that harsh, just tell him nicely that his source isn't really scientific or non-religious

 

[Vaiyen]

Engel: pls cool down. Your prickliness is not helping the discussion.

Morlock: pls come up with something other than Christian sources. I believe the fair-minded people here are open to all valid points.

 

[EngelFaeuste]

This remark would sure start a war here. You don't need to be that harsh, just tell him nicely that his source isn't really scientific or non-religious

Some people don't respond to gentle, respectful speech, he's one of them. Do you see me lashing out at ymmak? He's a moderate, I respect his views on evolution and will not launch into an all out tirade like I did against hifi_killie-billy and morlock. I believe that I am being reasonable by graduating my responses to different levels of stupidity.

 

[theliverevolution]

Some people don't respond to gentle, respectful speech, he's one of them. Do you see me lashing out at ymmak? He's a moderate, I respect his views on evolution and will not launch into an all out tirade like I did against hifi_killie-billy and morlock. I believe that I am being reasonable by graduating my responses to different levels of stupidity.

Yes, I know, but still, cool down. This is quite a healthy discussion and I've learnt stuff that I never knew before, which challenges my thinking and making me look at things from different perspectives. The last thing we need is a personal attack that goes out of control and forces a moderator to lock it because of that.

Also, that remark about the holy wars, "christomanics" and such was a bit rash. Perhaps, you might want to tone it down a little bit.


But just asking to yourself and Morlock, what makes radiocarbon dating accurate/inaccurate that you choose to disagree on this point?

 

[EngelFaeuste]

But just asking to yourself and Morlock, what makes radiocarbon dating accurate/inaccurate that you choose to disagree on this point?

Ok, rash speech censored as per polite request. Anyway, I find it really horrifying that somebody can trust the findings of another who clearly is more concerned with disproving the other's theory rather than proving his own.

 

[hifi_killer]

D. R. Humphreys, J. R. Baumgardner, S. A. Austin, and A. A., Snelling, "Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003. See also: Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 75, under "Constant Decay?"

Theres a disclaimer stated very clearly in the journal article:

"
∗∗
The authors’ statements and conclusions do not necessarily represent the positions or viewpoints of
the institutions for which they work, nor does listing the institutions’ names imply support for this work.
"
also,
this is only one of the sources of the website, if you would click on to the next few pages you would notice many other 'more secular' sources are being cited.

Unless you can read and understand what the article is talking, and then point out methodological flaws, if not, rejecting the source because of its 'perceived origins' just shows plain ignorance and arrogance.

 

[evident]

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?

if the creator wanted everything to be the same, he'd have just created one perfect species and let it populate the entire earth. i see whales as CREATIVE variations on the creator's part. and because whales are not dying out naturally, shows that it is not really an imperfect design. because if it were, they'd either adapt or die out. so what is perfect and imperfect? not everything has to be uniform.

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

you're still not getting the point ymmak, taypeng me i are trying to put forth to you. let's say you're stuck in a room and i ask your to make a chair. i give you necessary tools, planks of wood and a packet of grass. would you use the grass to make the chair? you would toss it away right?

what evolution is saying is that, all i give you are tools and grass, and you make a wooden chair out of nothing.

evolution uses proof of adaptation to prove it's theories, but doesn't mean that it can work one way means the opposite is true. like i said, evolution is creative, adaptation is destructive.

meet Tiktaalik

yes i've met him. tell me something, does tiktaalik has any dna that doesn't resemble a fish. is any of his dna a cross of fish and reptile (he does evolve into a reptile right?)

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.

wait what? didn't you just say they evolved lungs to live on land, and that creatures with gills are considered better suited to live in water than lungs? and now you're saying they're not necessary? what?

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

the lizard fish lived on land? but the fish-lizard lived in water. you did say there were fish in the water who developed legs but were still living in the water. so now you're saying they only evolved when they moved to a new environment? do you know where fossils are found? did you think that the "tiktaalik" was found alone? the tiktaalik was found with other "higher evolved species" in the same layer of soil. i'm confused about what you're trying to say here. i'll go back and find an article and edit this cuz i can't use internet for long. but yea, if monkeys were found buried with other "less evolved" creatures, then what does that say about natural selection?

 

[hifi_killer]

evolution is creative, adaptation is destructive.

I dont get it, how is adaptation destructive?

I think the prof is trying to be neutral. I suspect Singaporean academic staffs are suppose to be neutral in contentious discussions like this. I once asked Dr Lam Siew Hong of NUS (through a school forum), and his response was rather similar. His answer was something like "Oh, these are the mechanisms that can alter genetic sequences: <insert lists here>. Whether or not a combinations of these factors cause an evolution is really up to your own beliefs."

you took genes and soc?

 

[evident]

I dont get it, how is adaptation destructive?

adaptation is generally destructive. It is at most variation, but never creative. Put a flock of birds in cold climate and at most they grow thicker coats of feathers, but will never grow blubber or coats of fur. Take this adapted species and put them in warmer climate and they might thin down their thick coats of feathers, put them in the desert and they may lose their feathers on certain parts of their bodies totally. The variable here is the difference in what they already have. Put a fish in the deep ocean, where there's no light and they lose their eyesight. that's destructive. you can lose something or have more of something you already have, but you can't create a new characteristic which wasn't part of you in the first place.

 

[ymmak]

LOL, genes and soc was so last last sem for me. It is one of the more popular modules in Sci Fac; arts, sci, engin and biz students all seem to enjoy it either as gems, electives or breadth. Currently, I am doing another life science mod, which is taught by Dr Lam as well.

You can have something new: by mutations! But mutations are rather random, akin to throwing dices. And many mutations are known to be bad, and a handful mutations are silent, and very rarely, a mutation can bring about benefits to the individual or the community.

What is the point of relating ourselves to primitive apes through evolution?? So what if we are descendants of primitive apes?? It is not as if primitive apes are some rich but dying tycoons, who are distributing their wealth to their kins, and if we are proven related, we can share in their inheritance.

Just my 2 cents.

I thought this is funny. Haha.

 

[Dugujuijian]

I think for radiocarbon dating isn't good for arguing. Yes, 14c will decay due to half life but it does not destory the whole thing. It just becomes lesser and lesser to the point it isn't detectable. But then again it depends on how much was there in the the first place and half life decay may not always be constant.

 

[predz23]

arent you coming back to what i've mentioned that it also takes a certain amount of faith to believe in evolution because not all of it is proven?

no, because all we don't know is how single cell became multi-cell. I have no thoughts or beliefs about how that happened. But I'm not gonna ignore all the evidence supporting the evolution of all other animals. Why throw away the puzzle when only one piece doesn't fit?

man, I've been gone for like six hours and two or three new pages came up, I'm getting left behind

 

[Howlin'Wolf]

wow, never thought local people also interested in evolution so much. i thought this topic was only hotly debate in west, especially between liberal & conservative westerners. well, its good.
well, personally for me, I do believe animals can evolve, but not human. Because i dont think Adam our ancestor looked like baboon or orang Utan, you know what im saying...

 

[Morlock]

Ok, rash speech censored as per polite request. Anyway, I find it really horrifying that somebody can trust the findings of another who clearly is more concerned with disproving the other's theory rather than proving his own.

lol

I don't have to prove my theory coz I don't have one. I have beliefs...

as for you, your belief is subject to criticism because you claim that it is a scientific Theory get it?

And oh yeah, the title of the thread is "Proof of Evolution"

honestly I will not engage your childish rants anymore as it is a waste of my time and everyone Else's.

 

[Morlock]

Are you an idiot or an idiot?

READ WHERE THE SUPPOSEDLY NON CHRISTIAN SOURCE GET'S IT'S INFORMATION YOU MANIAC.

D. R. Humphreys, J. R. Baumgardner, S. A. Austin, and A. A., Snelling, "Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003. See also: Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 75, under "Constant Decay?"
Brown, ibid, p. 246.

Creation science? Talk about oxymorons. Go back to your dungeons and start your holy wars and inquisitions! The modern world has no place for backward scum like you!

"The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left."

That's exactly why we use Carbon-14 to date stuff you dimwit.

Ok here you go, another example that carbon dating is unreliable:

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/radio_carbon.html
Excerpt from the website:

"Radioactive carbon, produced when nitrogen 14 is bombarded by cosmic rays in the atmosphere, drifts down to earth and is absorbed from the air by plants. Animals eat the plants and take C14 into their bodies"

"Basically this means that half of the original amount of C14 in organic matter will have disintegrated 5730 years after the organisms death; half of the remaining C14 will have disintegrated after another 5730 years and so forth. After about 50,000 years, the amount of C14 remaining will be so small that the fossil can't be dated reliably. "

I was assuming that with your intelligence, you would do more research on the subject to invalidate what I said instead of bashing my posts.

even this website is assuming that cosmic rays has been constant on earth for 50,000 years. how would they know? (errrmm Large Asteroid Hit can easily Disrupt the flow of cosmic rays, so does a world wide flood.) still radio carbon dating does not and will not prove that the world is billions of years old.

so what else you got?

 

[Morlock]

Some people don't respond to gentle, respectful speech, he's one of them. Do you see me lashing out at ymmak? He's a moderate, I respect his views on evolution and will not launch into an all out tirade like I did against hifi_killie-billy and morlock. I believe that I am being reasonable by graduating my responses to different levels of stupidity.

is this your gentle and respectful speech?

He's smarter than you, I know him. So suck it up and accept the fact.



Radiocarbon Dating you dimwit.

I can't imagine how you are when you get rude.

 

[taypeng81]

no, because all we don't know is how single cell became multi-cell. I have no thoughts or beliefs about how that happened. But I'm not gonna ignore all the evidence supporting the evolution of all other animals. Why throw away the puzzle when only one piece doesn't fit?

man, I've been gone for like six hours and two or three new pages came up, I'm getting left behind

my problem with it is that its not a small and insignificant portion that is unexplained, its actually a HUGE portion:

1. Primordial soup to single cells: if enzymes work in a "lock and key" fashion, what are the chances for a simple metabolic cycle to come together totally BY CHANCE. again "lock and key" meaning only one key fits the lock and in this case the "lock" (enzyme) and "key" (proteins, DNA etc) developed by chance separately. and also we have to assume there were endless amounts of ATP (energy) floating around.

2. Single cell to multi cell

3. Multi cell to higher level organisms

In my opinion, the scientist are aware of the improbabilities so they have to suggest all this can happen over millions and millions of years. To me its like saying, the chances of me and megan fox getting together is 1/1,000,0000 but you cant rule out the 1 in a million chance! give me one million years to live or one million tries im bound to get her one day...

 

[Vaiyen]

so what else you got?

Radiocarbon dating is just one of many methods outlined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Some of which have half-lifes of millions of years.

It is quite telling that creationists would focus their attention on radiocarbon dating, which is the most limited methodology in the geologist's arsenal.

 

[predz23]

my problem with it is that its not a small and insignificant portion that is unexplained, its actually a HUGE portion:

1. Primordial soup to single cells: if enzymes work in a "lock and key" fashion, what are the chances for a simple metabolic cycle to come together totally BY CHANCE. again "lock and key" meaning only one key fits the lock and in this case the "lock" (enzyme) and "key" (proteins, DNA etc) developed by chance separately. and also we have to assume there were endless amounts of ATP (energy) floating around.

2. Single cell to multi cell

3. Multi cell to higher level organisms

In my opinion, the scientist are aware of the improbabilities so they have to suggest all this can happen over millions and millions of years. To me its like saying, the chances of me and megan fox getting together is 1/1,000,0000 but you cant rule out the 1 in a million chance! give me one million years to live or one million tries im bound to get her one day...

basically the questions you are asking are about how they began, which I'm sure the theory of evolution isn't there to answer. Evolution answers the origin of species, not life. Which is 1.)
I don't know about 2.), but I'm not gonna jump to the biggest conclusion of them all and say it was a creator. Big claims require big evidence, not lack of evidence from the other party.
But I don't quite see the problem with 3.) If we already have multicellular organisms, like amoeba, then I don't find it hard to see a transition to plankton, worms and slugs

The questions you are asking are about the first step. The first step is always significant and difficult. Only because we don't know how anything could have taken the first step, doesn't mean we should throw away the staircase. Especially when we're already on the top of it, with evidence of how we got there from step 2.

I understand what you mean with megan fox. BUT if theres only 1/1,000,000 chance of life emerging on a planet,it means life emerging is quite unlikely. But because there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,....etc. planets around the universe, that small percentage becomes a large number

1/10 chance with 100 = 10,
1/10 chance with 1,000 = 100,
1/10 chance with 10,000 =1,000

BTW off topic: if we found intelligent life on another planet, would they be worshipping jesus or allah too?