Proof of Evolution

[predz23]

feels good to talk about evolution again

Evolution is not science. science is something you can:

1. Test

2. Observe

3. Repeat

let's go through them one by one, shall we?

1. You can't test evolution because it's not happening now. we don't see humans evolving, growing wings so that we can better adapt to our environment. we all know that it is better for our survival that we are able to fly. and since lizards evolved into birds, why aren't we growing wings? i'll find myself more adapted to the environment if i could fly above floods and get to places i want to go without walking or taking the bus.

LOL, evolution happens so slowly that you cannot simply test it. Put one grain of salt into your soup, taste the difference? put another grain, taste the difference? But you agree over time, theres more salt in your soup. Yeah you would totally love to fly, but what makes you think thats the best adaptation? You've got to loose a lot of mass, your bones must hollow out, you need air sacks inside your body and a lot of your energy goes into into flying and development of wings. Birds don't have arms, they have wings because wings were their arms. You want to sacrifice your arms for your wings? We can swim you know. We evolved to walk upright because thinning forests and we need to get to other places by walking there by going upright, instead of de-evolving our legs for walking on all fours. Evolution is not about the best design, its about the least difficulty of reproduction. Maybe I mean it this way in evolution reproduce>best design, but don't quote me on that

2. Similar to above post. You can't observe because it's not happening now. You said evolution happened millions of years ago, and then say that it happens over a period of time, which is contradicting. when you say that it happened a long time ago, it's basically to explain why it's not happening now. but time doesn't occur in blocks, time is a continuous flow. and don't use adaptation as proof for evolution because they are total opposites, as i've mentioned before. doesn't mean that something works one way, means the reverse is therefore true. it isn't doesn't mean something can LOSE an arm, doesn't mean that you can grow wings. it's like you're stuck in a room and i give you a packet of masrhmellows and ask you to build a wooden chair. you can't.

The evolution of lets say 'legs' happened a long time ago, but since time is a continuous flow, so is evolution, because no animal in its environment is perfectly adapted to its environment, it can always be better adapted. And I still don't understand why there needs to be a difference between adaptation and evolution? Like "thats proof of adaptation not evolution" hundreds of thousands of years of Adaptation leads to evolution, and we HAVE observed that through fossils and genetics

3. you can't repeat it either. because "scientists" don't know enough to be able to create an environment to encourage evolution. how hard is it really? i mean come on, we've had how many years now? and no one's doing it, or even starting. to breed dogs until they get dogs that have characteristics of other animals, without using genetic modification of course. just purely from breeding and controlling environmental factors. and since these guys are experts, shouldn't they at least look into how to speed up this process? you can't repeat it.

this sounds a little ignorant to me, Do you know how long it took for animals to evolve anything at all?!? it took some animals over 10 million years. And you want scientists to do it now? right now? Especially with you saying "i mean come on, we've had how many years now?" lets just say we humans haven't even been longer than a blink of an eye in the history of animal evolution, and you want the scientists to show you everything now?

so tell me, is evolution science? gravity is a theory that i can test, observe and repeat. but not evolution. so don't put them on the same pedestal. it's as much a belief as creationism is. we can't test, observe and repeat creation because we're not God.

Evolution is not science, neither is gravity. figuring out how the natural world and how things work, THATS science.
Evolution is not as much belief as creationism is, no way at all. We have evidence of fossils, genes, geographic dispersion etc. what you really are wondering is how CERTAIN THINGS evolved, not evolution itself

 

[evident]

LOL, evolution happens so slowly that you cannot simply test it. Put one grain of salt into your soup, taste the difference? put another grain, taste the difference? But you agree over time, theres more salt in your soup. Yeah you would totally love to fly, but what makes you think thats the best adaptation? You've got to loose a lot of mass, your bones must hollow out, you need air sacks inside your body and a lot of your energy goes into into flying and development of wings. Birds don't have arms, they have wings because wings were their arms. You want to sacrifice your arms for your wings? We can swim you know. We evolved to walk upright because thinning forests and we need to get to other places by walking there by going upright, instead of de-evolving our legs for walking on all fours. Evolution is not about the best design, its about the least difficulty of reproduction. Maybe I mean it this way in evolution reproduce>best design, but don't quote me on that

yes, but if you put one grain of salt in soup and test it - you CAN find that one grain. the problem is that no animals are evolving in any way at all. so if birds are therefore less "better designed" than us, why don't they grow arms and legs? oh wait, they're still evolving...right? except that their wings are still wings and legs are still legs. you're talking about every species as separate species. but isn't evolution about common characteristics in different species. fish became lizards because they needed legs, but fish now are suited for reproduction therefore they don't need to evolve..wait what? i do not understand. my mind is about to burst.

The evolution of lets say 'legs' happened a long time ago, but since time is a continuous flow, so is evolution, because no animal in its environment is perfectly adapted to its environment, it can always be better adapted. And I still don't understand why there needs to be a difference between adaptation and evolution? Like "thats proof of adaptation not evolution" hundreds of thousands of years of Adaptation leads to evolution, and we HAVE observed that through fossils and genetics

i totally agree, so why isn't it happening now if evolution is a continuous flow? your question is like asking why is there a need to be a difference between paper and dogs, there isn't a need - they just are different, period. fossils and genetics say nothing about evolution, and creationists use the same "evidences" and find that it actually supports the biblical account of creationism.

this sounds a little ignorant to me, Do you know how long it took for animals to evolve anything at all?!? it took some animals over 10 million years. And you want scientists to do it now? right now? Especially with you saying "i mean come on, we've had how many years now?" lets just say we humans haven't even been longer than a blink of an eye in the history of animal evolution, and you want the scientists to show you everything now?

once again you're talking as if evolution is not one continuous process. even if it took 10 million years to create a new species, it doesn't mean that it's a fish for 10 million years and 1 day later suddenly lizards appear. we don't see anything evolving (not adapting, i keep stressing this - evolution is creative, adaptation doesn't create) in this current day. so what i meant by "after all this years" was that even though we don't notice it everyday, at least there would be a SLIGHT, just a slightest bit of change, after all these years. but out of 10 million years, i agree, it might not be significant. but what about the 6 billion people? assuming evolution is a continuous, never-ending process, and species "evolve at different rates" and also the environment all over the world is different, why aren't humans getting more and more different from each other? like eskimos growing blubber and fur, and people in the desert losing hair totally? and people in tropical countries being more intolerant to temperate climates every day. put a species in a new environment for a few years and it will adapt, but evolution takes 10 million years? you tell me they're the same?

Evolution is not science, neither is gravity. figuring out how the natural world and how things work, THATS science.
Evolution is not as much belief as creationism is, no way at all. We have evidence of fossils, genes, geographic dispersion etc. what you really are wondering is how CERTAIN THINGS evolved, not evolution itself

evolution is not science? but you call evolutionists "scientists" and they teach it in our science textbooks? and here you're accusing creationists for passing our beliefs off as science. please tell me you're kidding.

You wanna talk about fossils? fossils are more consistent with the Genesis account of a great flood that caused rapid burial and fossilization. i'm not an expert in the genes and geographical dispersion area, so i'll let someone more knowledgeable than me answer this.

and lastly a quote..

Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.

 

[ymmak]

hifi_killer: no lah, my exams are still ongoing. Open book, so shouldnt be a big prob. What are you majoring in?

 

[predz23]

yes, but if you put one grain of salt in soup and test it - you CAN find that one grain. the problem is that no animals are evolving in any way at all. so if birds are therefore less "better designed" than us, why don't they grow arms and legs? oh wait, they're still evolving...right? except that their wings are still wings and legs are still legs. you're talking about every species as separate species. but isn't evolution about common characteristics in different species. fish became lizards because they needed legs, but fish now are suited for reproduction therefore they don't need to evolve..wait what? i do not understand. my mind is about to burst.

Yes they are evolving, if they are alive that means their parents survived and passed down their traits. You are the one deciding that birds are less better designed than us, but can you fly? Of course wings are still wings, because evolution is soooooo daaaaaaaamnnnnn slooooooow. Of course you can find that one grain of salt, but can you taste it in your soup? Not only that, if the bird is the soup and in the future the bird will evolve into a salty soup, what makes you sure that you will know that path of evolution? When you find that one grain of salt in the bird, does that mean in the future the soup will be salty? Every individual has variation in a species, you cannot predict what trait will be favored or expressed. In other words, if you are looking for that one grain of salt (which represents the earliest evolution of new legs, wings etc), what makes you think you can recognize the one single trait that will be expressed?
Only because an animal has evolved from another animal, doesnt mean that animal A<B. If you geographically isolate one species, they will evolve separately, thats what happened with fish -> amphibians->lizards, they were separated from water.

i totally agree, so why isn't it happening now if evolution is a continuous flow? your question is like asking why is there a need to be a difference between paper and dogs, there isn't a need - they just are different, period. fossils and genetics say nothing about evolution, and creationists use the same "evidences" and find that it actually supports the biblical account of creationism.

BECAUSE ITS SO DAMN SLOW!!! Fossils and genetics say nothing about evolution? are you sure? When I find a fossil of an animal from 10 million years ago and compare it to a similar animal from 9 million years, and see many differences AND use fossil DNA to confirm they are related, that doesn't say anything?? And If I do the same by comparing it with the related animals from 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 ,1 million years ago and see a gradual change, that doesn't say anything?!?

once again you're talking as if evolution is not one continuous process. even if it took 10 million years to create a new species, it doesn't mean that it's a fish for 10 million years and 1 day later suddenly lizards appear.

a lizard will definitely not suddenly appear, its like every color in the visible light spectrum, at what point is red yellow?

... we don't see anything evolving (not adapting, i keep stressing this - evolution is creative, adaptation doesn't create) in this current day. so what i meant by "after all this years" was that even though we don't notice it everyday, at least there would be a SLIGHT, just a slightest bit of change, after all these years. but out of 10 million years, i agree, it might not be significant.

There are slightest bits of change, but what makes you so sure you can recognize them? It is so slight, that it can simply be passed of as variation. You say you agree, its not significant out of 10 million years. Evolution creates things, out of millions of years of adaptation. What is it exactly that you are saying that isn't possible? say one example, and I will look into it

but what about the 6 billion people? assuming evolution is a continuous, never-ending process, and species "evolve at different rates" and also the environment all over the world is different, why aren't humans getting more and more different from each other? like eskimos growing blubber and fur, and people in the desert losing hair totally? and people in tropical countries being more intolerant to temperate climates every day. put a species in a new environment for a few years and it will adapt, but evolution takes 10 million years? you tell me they're the same?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33916577/ns/technology_and_science-science/

You're basically expecting evolution to be visible right now. It makes sense for eskimo's to grow blubber and fur, but what makes you so sure thats gonna happen? Whales didn't evolve gills, but they can still live in water. If we live 35 million years ago, with the earliest whales, you would be arguing 'why haven't they evolved gills yet?' 25 million years later, the modern whales still don't have gills, but they can dive and swim awesomely. The most sensible design is not necessarily going to evolve

evolution is not science? but you call evolutionists "scientists" and they teach it in our science textbooks? and here you're accusing creationists for passing our beliefs off as science. please tell me you're kidding.

Evolution itself is not science. Science is figuring things out, Evolution is just a naturally occurring phenomena. Like lightning, it occurs naturally, but lightning itself is not science, studying it and understanding it is the actual science

You wanna talk about fossils? fossils are more consistent with the Genesis account of a great flood that caused rapid burial and fossilization. ...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
wow so the flood, also buried the ancient extinct animals in the right geographical locations? in the right million year timespans?

 

[evident]

Yes they are evolving, if they are alive that means their parents survived and passed down their traits. You are the one deciding that birds are less better designed than us, but can you fly? Of course wings are still wings, because evolution is soooooo daaaaaaaamnnnnn slooooooow. Of course you can find that one grain of salt, but can you taste it in your soup? Not only that, if the bird is the soup and in the future the bird will evolve into a salty soup, what makes you sure that you will know that path of evolution? When you find that one grain of salt in the bird, does that mean in the future the soup will be salty? Every individual has variation in a species, you cannot predict what trait will be favored or expressed. In other words, if you are looking for that one grain of salt (which represents the earliest evolution of new legs, wings etc), what makes you think you can recognize the one single trait that will be expressed?
Only because an animal has evolved from another animal, doesnt mean that animal A<B. If you geographically isolate one species, they will evolve separately, thats what happened with fish -> amphibians->lizards, they were separated from water.

wait hold on, i'm not the one saying that birds are less better designed (i'm the creationist here, remember?). according to your theory, the reason why species evolve is because their current characteristics are not suitable to survive. so it would be logical to conclude that if wings evolved into hands (like you said) it means birds were earlier up in the evolutionary chart, meaning they are less evolved than us.

when you add one grain of salt into soup, you can't taste it. just like you can't see it visibly. but if you test it, (salt concentration of soup) you will be able to find that grain of salt dissolved into the soup. likewise, if you test evolution (going and observe DNA, you should be able to observe slight changes because you're now going into detail and observing on a very small level.

the problem is that there are still birds living as birds in the same environment that "encouraged evolution". why aren't there any living transitional species in these areas, since evolution is continuous, should there at least be a mixture. because evolution and time doesn't happen in blocks. do you get what i mean? the problem is that all "missing links" and "transitional species" are dead, even though they are SUPPOSED TO BE more adapted to the environment.

BECAUSE ITS SO DAMN SLOW!!! Fossils and genetics say nothing about evolution? are you sure? When I find a fossil of an animal from 10 million years ago and compare it to a similar animal from 9 million years, and see many differences AND use fossil DNA to confirm they are related, that doesn't say anything?? And If I do the same by comparing it with the related animals from 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 ,1 million years ago and see a gradual change, that doesn't say anything?!?

read my quote about evolution in previous post. if i don't have the presumption that evolution is true, i wouldn't care if you said the fossils were 9 million years old. because there's no way to tell. refer to other peoples' posts on fossil dating.

I quote again..

Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.

show me a chart of fossils (not drawings) that show that animals evolve..

a lizard will definitely not suddenly appear, its like every color in the visible light spectrum, at what point is red yellow?

yes i agree, that's what i said. yet that's what i concluded from your statement about evolution taking 10 million years, and that's why it's not visible now. refer to first quote's response.

There are slightest bits of change, but what makes you so sure you can recognize them? It is so slight, that it can simply be passed of as variation. You say you agree, its not significant out of 10 million years. Evolution creates things, out of millions of years of adaptation. What is it exactly that you are saying that isn't possible? say one example, and I will look into it

not me but scientists, they can observe DNA and all that but no one has observed significant changes, if any, that can account for new information being embedded into the dna which would cause the growth of something that is unusual to the species. i know evolution creates things, but how can millions of years of duplicating and removing account for the creation of new parts (in the DNA) that isn't there in the first place. i can give you one pack of marshmellows and you can't make a wooden chair, no matter how many packets of marshmellows i give you in the span of 10 million years, you wouldn't get the materials to make a wooden chair. the dna doesn't have the code for creation, it can only vary between what it has. let's say a dog can grow an addition dog leg, making 3 legs. a dog can grow a thicker coat of fur in cold environments or lose it fur in hot environments, but it's logically and physically impossible to grow something that is out of it's genetic coding, eg. blubber.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33916577/ns/technology_and_science-science/

You're basically expecting evolution to be visible right now. It makes sense for eskimo's to grow blubber and fur, but what makes you so sure thats gonna happen? Whales didn't evolve gills, but they can still live in water. If we live 35 million years ago, with the earliest whales, you would be arguing 'why haven't they evolved gills yet?' 25 million years later, the modern whales still don't have gills, but they can dive and swim awesomely. The most sensible design is not necessarily going to evolve.

ok choose one, is it better suited to live in the water with gills or lungs? if gills, why hasn't whales (in 25 million years) evolved into gills since it's the better evolutionary path. and if lungs, why hasn't fish, most if not all, discarded gills and grown lungs? evolution is basically changing to survive, so you have to choose between which system is better and choose it. the fact that whales haven't changed, and are still "diving and swimming awesomely" accounts better for ID than evolution.

Evolution itself is not science. Science is figuring things out, Evolution is just a naturally occurring phenomena. Like lightning, it occurs naturally, but lightning itself is not science, studying it and understanding it is the actual science

ok, so it's a naturally occuring phenomena that is not really occuring. that link isn't an "evolutionary change". i would consider it degenerative. and mutations against malaria isn't evolution too. it's more immunity (adaptation). all "evidence" of evolution only show changes to what is already there, but cannot explain how new (note: BRAND NEW, NOT PART OF GENETICS) parts are formed. like a human growing wings, or a bird growing paws and fur. i keep repeating my points, but you don't seem to get them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
wow so the flood, also buried the ancient extinct animals in the right geographical locations? in the right million year timespans?

i don't get what you're saying. please elaborate. the flood buried the animals where they were, that's why you had bats getting buried with "missing-link-lemurs (which were just variations of regular lemurs) and crocodiles and everything you see today. except the "better suited, higher evolved" creatures were dead.

 

[Morlock]

Theres nothing wrong with having an agenda, but what the agenda is, is important. American creationists, even though they have a religious motivation, are still not using the scientific rigours and logic behind science.

on what basis? cite examples please as that is a very huge claim. I cannot just take your word for it.

But as I recall radiocarbon dating is a lot more accurate than what others have claimed, because the rate of particles that leave the nucleus, which is used to measure decay is quite consistent, because the nucleus itself insulates them from external factors like pressure and temperature

--- Radio carbon dating is only accurate and can only be proven accurate up to a few thousand years old. no dating has been proven to be accurate when you are talking about billions of years. Some (not all) scientists assumes that decay is consistent on what basis? that it was consistent for the past 5000 years? but contamination can easily happen... statistical possibility of contamination is a trillion times more possible that soup to cell. which is 1 chance in 2.04 x 10 to the power of 390 (that's 10 with 390 zero behind). and thousands more possible than ape to man. which is 1 in a million.

 

[Morlock]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
wow so the flood, also buried the ancient extinct animals in the right geographical locations? in the right million year timespans?

so layers of rock determine millions of years is it? then how do you explain this petrified tree across different layers of rock?

image taken from
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2005/petrified.html

 

[predz23]

to evident:

Ok I'm sick of the quoting system, too overwhelming

The animals today are adapted to living in their environment, but they're not perfectly adapted. It can always get better. But since they are already well developed, the rate slows. Like in a graph, it becomes less steep over time
With the soup, you know what you are looking for. You use the concentration of salt, to check the salt content. But you know you are looking for salt. In real life we wouldn't know whether to look for the change in concentration of salt, chilli, pepper, parsley, garlic, onions or tomatoes. Because each ingredient gets changed every generation. But we did find some sort of change in the link I provided.
You said there wasn't any change, yes there is concerning the link. You say its degenerative, because the brain is getting smaller. Whales lost their hind legs over time, but that's not a bad thing for them is it? only because our brains are getting smaller doesn't mean it's degenerative. Maybe in today's society, because we rely on each other more than ourselves, our brain gets more specialized in certain things instead of being good at a lot of things. Thats what the link said as I recall
(unless you meant degeneration as in loosing legs but not evolving legs, which concerns your evolution doesn't add to DNA for stuff argument, in that case what I wrote up there is only a response to 'there is no change')

Concerning what you said about missing links, I honestly do NOT know what you are talking about, you need to elaborate on that

As for the fossils, of course fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms, they're dead! heres the problem "Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms" its change over time, over each generation not in live organisms. Evolution does not apply to the individual. But we found fossils that are 10, 9, 8, etc million years old, and for each million years the species shows change.

As for evolution does not create new parts, no human has grown wings no bird has grown hands. Wings evolved from hands, so one of us got something mixed up. You need to provide more direct examples of evolution not creating new parts so I can try to explain.
I don't know what new parts you are talking about, all parts evolved from older parts. Blubber is basically fat that has vascularized, wings were evolved from hands, they still have the same bones. Lungs evolved from gills, bones evolved from harden internal cartilage (i think cartilage) structures etc
Evolution is about the most efficient way to reproduce, not the best design. Its easier to modify the old design than it is to completely redesign, so whales have blowholes from nostrils that feed air to lungs not gills.

heres an example

That yellow thing is the nerve that connects the brain to the larynx. It goes from the brain, down the neck and up the neck to the larynx. It takes a long way around to get to the larynx and even passes it on the way down. A long time ago, with our earliest fish ancestors, the nerve was shaped like this ")" from the top of the brain to the larynx at the bottom, because that WAS the shortest way to the larynx. Now as it slowly evolves a neck it went from ")" all the way to a "U" shape on its side. That's because the neck grew longer and it was easier to simply extend the nerve than it was to 'rewire' it. Designers have the ability to go back to the drawing board and create a new design. Evolution can't do that and has to work with what it already has. With the nerve as an example, it was modified rather than redesigned, because it was easier to keep the same wiring, than to rewire.
And guess what, the giraffe also has that nerve from its brain to its larynx, and the nerve goes all the way down its long neck to make a loop over the aortic arch which is located close to its chest and go all the way back up its neck to the larynx. The nerve is around twice as long as its neck because of this, even though the distance from the brain to the larynx is I'm guessing 10cm

 

[predz23]

To Morlock

You might wanna read this, make sure you got some coffee brewing though. If you got questions about this PLS DO NOT ASK ME, I can answer a lot of question about evolution but not scientific dating methods

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

I know its kinda lame that I give you a link, and I can't answer what ever questions that might arise out of it. But hey, no reason not to share and it also got a lot of sources it cites from

 

[taypeng81]

so predz... you're suggesting that humans came from fishes because of similarities with the nerve?

 

[predz23]

so predz... you're suggesting that humans came from fishes because of similarities with the nerve?

A slightly ignorant post, all land animals evolved from fish ancestors yes, but theres a long process in between

you might as well say "so predz...a human comes from one sperm cell?" except your statement is even bigger in terms of differences

 

[empihsrow]

There is one big problem with this whole thread...

How credible are your arguments? How reliable are your information?

I see and read loads of assumptions and claims made, but where are your solid concrete proof?

 

[Morlock]

honestly I dont have anything against "The Origin of Species" I think it is a brilliant Inference to the explanation of why animal changes on different situations. The evidences that people put to prove evolution is quite amazing and convincing to some. but of course you will always have oppositions until it has been proven to be a fact. We will have to wait for a time machine I guess (Scientists now are trying to build one).

But what I do resent is that this theory being taught as if it was a fact. That's what I really hate to see. Seeing children as small as 7 being taught that Evolution by darwin is a proven fact where it is still being debated and some questions are still left unanswered. Of course children will believe as if this is a fact because they don't have any choice.

what I want to see in the future is that academic institutions leave this topic as an open ended one or don't teach it at all. let students choose what they want to believe.

 

[taypeng81]

A slightly ignorant post, all land animals evolved from fish ancestors yes, but theres a long process in between

you might as well say "so predz...a human comes from one sperm cell?" except your statement is even bigger in terms of differences

interesting i wonder what led scientist to conclude that? i've not heard reports of mudskippers crawling onto completely dry land though i've seen fishes jump out of my tank (and die)

at which point did they lose the gills and attain the genetic sequences for physical lungs and the metabolic enzymes needed for breathing air? when did they drop their scales for skin? oh i know, very convenient, it cant be proven or observed because it happened over billions of years because mathematically, that is the only way it might have happened.

Is the earth billions of years old? I dont know, how old is our sun?

it is a fact that the surviving species we have today are all genetically stable. Does that agree with the theory of evolution? We should be seeing more genetically unstable species since it would be those that have a high rate of mutation that would be able to adapt quickly to changing or new environments.

????

 

[predz23]

interesting i wonder what led scientist to conclude that? i've not heard reports of mudskippers crawling onto completely dry land though i've seen fishes jump out of my tank (and die)

at which point did they lose the gills and attain the genetic sequences for physical lungs and the metabolic enzymes needed for breathing air? when did they drop their scales for skin? oh i know, very convenient, it cant be proven or observed because it happened over billions of years because mathematically, that is the only way it might have happened.

Fish can only absorb the oxygen through their gills if their gills are moist, thats why the first fish that spent some short time on land could slightly breathe there. As long as their gills were moist they could extract some oxygen from the air. Over time they got better at extracting oxygen from the air. Over time skin grew over the gills, sealing the gills within the body, keeping it moist all the time. . Fish can suck in water and blow it out of their gills so they can breathe. Its the same when they were on land, they sucked in air but blew it out again. The first lungs were sealed in gills. They didn't suddenly have the genetic capability of creating lungs

it is a fact that the surviving species we have today are all genetically stable. Does that agree with the theory of evolution? We should be seeing more genetically unstable species since it would be those that have a high rate of mutation that would be able to adapt quickly to changing or new environments.

????

A few animals are not so stable, lions in nature reserves in africa suffer from lack of genetic diversity causing them to be more easily affected to disease because they end up inbreeding. Dogs aswell, all those generations of breeding the same breed of dogs caused a lack of genetic diversity. Generations of only mating golden retrievers with golden retrievers will shrink the genetic diversity causing not only genetic problems but also make them more likely to catch disease.
The most stable animals are those from parents who are genetically the most different from each other. The species who's population has the most genetic diversity is the species that has better chances of evolving

I'm not so sure about this, but I don't think genetically instability and mutations go hand in hand. When genes are unstable aren't they then less likely to express the genes they are suppose to express? Aren't unstable genes some how related to cancer?

As for the sun being young, in universe terms, young can still be billions of years old. I hope someone else can chip in for age of the earth, I'm only good at evolution

 

[predz23]

There is one big problem with this whole thread...

How credible are your arguments? How reliable are your information?

I see and read loads of assumptions and claims made, but where are your solid concrete proof?

Remember that most of the time, when trying to prove anything, it isn't the one single undeniable proof. Its the amount of evidence and how they come together.

I provide evidence from my knowledge that I got from magazines, tv, internet etc. If I tell you about the whale evolution, of course theres no way I can prove it to you in a forum

However I do provide evidence (whether anyone believes the evidence itself) but so far from the other side, I've only gotten doubts of evolution and not even evidence against evolution, instead of actual evidence for creation

 

[taypeng81]

genetic diversity and genetic stability are different terms. Genetic stability includes rate of mutation.

fishes are still around, i dont see skin growing on their gills? have not heard reports of other anomalies too. are scientist ignoring other evidences in favor of their theories?

 

[Morlock]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

"A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation. "

-- I guess this where usual problem begins. media assuming that any dinosaur is at least 65 million years old and present them as facts. Close minded assumption that it is 65 million years old and anyone who contest this is crazy, ignorant and dumb. well that is very judgemental, prejudice and close minded in my opinion.

"To my knowledge, preservation to this extent—where you still have original flexibility and transparency—has not been noted in dinosaurs before, so we're pretty excited by the find," said Mary H. Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.

-- is it possible that it was not 65 million years old? is there any slight possibility?

 

[Morlock]

Remember that most of the time, when trying to prove anything, it isn't the one single undeniable proof. Its the amount of evidence and how they come together.

does it mean that if I have 100's of evidence, that is enough to convict a criminal? number of evidence is not enough but the quality of it. you don't need 100's of evidence to prove gravity, you only need to jump up and down.

I provide evidence from my knowledge that I got from magazines, tv, internet etc. If I tell you about the whale evolution, of course theres no way I can prove it to you in a forum

Why can't anything be proven in a forum? you can write your proofs, post pictures, post links to videos etc. how do you think scientific proposals get submitted anyway? By publishing a paper!

However I do provide evidence (whether anyone believes the evidence itself) but so far from the other side, I've only gotten doubts of evolution and not even evidence against evolution, instead of actual evidence for creation

All evidences are subject to cross examinations, and if someone did not interpret your evidence the way you did does not prove them wrong and you right. It also does not make them crazy, just different.

 

[Morlock]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

"A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation. "

-- I guess this where usual problem begins. media assuming that any dinosaur is at least 65 million years old and present them as facts. Close minded assumption that it is 65 million years old and anyone who contest this is crazy, ignorant and dumb. well that is very judgemental, prejudice and close minded in my opinion.

"To my knowledge, preservation to this extent—where you still have original flexibility and transparency—has not been noted in dinosaurs before, so we're pretty excited by the find," said Mary H. Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.

-- is it possible that it was not 65 million years old? is there any slight possibility?

Another thing, Petrification does not prove millions of years.

http://www.ncsec.org/cadre2/team2_2/crossCurricularActivities/petrification/petrification.htm

"Under ideal chemical conditions, petrification is possible in a few hundred years or even less"