Proof of Evolution

[ymmak]

They have THE RIGHT to be offended, and so do I with their nonsense ideas
and btw it was never about science vs religion, its about religious people trying to deceive the public into thinking creationism is science

I sense a very heated argument in the making.

There was nothing wrong in raising an opinion that there are many evidences for evolution. But to judge a group of people (and there are not really a small minority group), is simply not wise. It is like a group attack.

 

[predz23]

i feel like I'm attacking the idea and not the people, and also attacking their decisions into deceiving the public

 

[taypeng81]

heated...? not for me if anyone takes offense then this shall be my last post. or mods can just delete my posts. scientific stuff is something of interest for me so i posted these views.

about the genetic changes, if you understand how proteins are encoded, you will know that one single nucleotide change in the DNA can potentially change the structure/function of the protein it encodes for, and all metabolic functions involve proteins and enzymes. So for the change to go thru to the next generation, the change must either be beneficial or produce no change to metabolic cycles/other systems. We can see in some cases, the mutation causes detrimental effects such as cancer.
That is the first barrier to overcome.

There is a second barrier and that is the existence of a system within the cell that corrects these mutations during replication/encoding of proteins, reducing the chance of any mutation.

lastly, no mechanism exist for wholesale changes to the genome.

Those are the 3 barriers internally within the cell + external conditions must favor the changes. therefore, the probability for evolution of one species to another (not interbreeding between complimentary species) is very low. The likelihood of occurence over millions of years? maybe can la if you want to put it that way but its like ignoring the maths of probability in my opinion.

in my view, its highly unlikely that the diverse life and complex ecosystems especially those that occupy niche environments can be accounted for based on evolution (random chance).

teleplayer - yes cell membrane. thanks. if memory serves me correctly there is a "pump" on the cell membrane that maintains the osmotic pressure. That requires ATP to function.

 

[ymmak]

You have specifically mentioned that "they have the rights to be offended", and "its about religious people trying to deceive the public into thinking creationism is science", so it gives others the impression that you are attacking the people, rather than the ideas. Probably you do not mean that way, but the phrasing of your opinions are imo harsh and unwise.

You may wanna reframe your statement to "I do not feel comfortable with thinking that creationism is science", this is more subtile on your displeasure with a certain group of people, yet drives your point that you are against their ideas.

 

[ymmak]

about the genetic changes, if you understand how proteins are encoded, you will know that one single nucleotide change in the DNA can potentially change the structure/function of the protein it encodes for, and all metabolic functions involve proteins and enzymes. So for the change to go thru to the next generation, the change must either be beneficial or produce no change to metabolic cycles/other systems. We can see in some cases, the mutation causes detrimental effects such as cancer.
That is the first barrier to overcome.

There is a second barrier and that is the existence of a system within the cell that corrects these mutations during replication/encoding of proteins, reducing the chance of any mutation.

lastly, no mechanism exist for wholesale changes to the genome.

Those are the 3 barriers internally within the cell + external conditions must favor the changes. therefore, the probability for evolution of one species to another (not interbreeding between complimentary species) is very low. The likelihood of occurence over millions of years? maybe can la if you want to put it that way but its like ignoring the maths of probability in my opinion.

you forgot to mention degeneracy of the genetic code also buffers for mutation.

i believe "the external conditions must favor the changes" is called selection pressure.

i think segregation should also occur for speciation to be successful.

 

[fehlupkid]

well, i'm not here with a theory or something i've studied. (not that smart)

but here's someone that might have more to say about this... since he is a geneticist and the Director of the National Center for Human Genome Research, which became NHGRI in 1997.. (extracted from wiki)

and i think you can search him on youtube.

in a very unrefined manner and terms used loosely, he does believe in evolution, yet questions the origins of matter still... if i understand correctly. his book is available in borders i think.

am intrigued by what he has to say...

but how did this topic end up in soft anyways? hehe... the closest i can imagine is you are listening to, atom ant? no.. that's adam ant.. ok wrong.. haha

 

[penta-tonic]

They have THE RIGHT to be offended, and so do I with their nonsense ideas
and btw it was never about science vs religion, its about religious people trying to deceive the public into thinking creationism is science

if opinion was fact that would be kinda funny isnt it. im not standing in any camp be it creationist or evolutionist. i am however Christian and i see no reason for causing any conflict through individual opinion. its really funny, cos u seem have the idea that we have 'nonsense ideas' and we deceive people but isnt it really bigoted to justify ones' opinion over another? what makes your opinion so much better that someone elses? as much as freedom of speech is cherished with freedom of choice, freedom of speech is the freedom to say the things u ought, not say the things u please.

one generally discounts himself from any logical debate when one refuses to use logic, basing the perceived truth upon his passionate ideals which in itself is not wrong but when wrongly used to justify supremacy of thought. plus it just shows poor upbringing.

 

[penta-tonic]

i see nothing wrong with his posts.
seriously, its a good read when you get to view both sides in question.
and im sure the christian softies wont take offence, if they can see it from a different perspective.

i think it would be cool to just study the ideas people are tossing around. i find it a good read too exept that i didnt really find anything predz23 said about evolution or proving any theories, seemed to me he decided to take a swing at people instead. now, thats offensive. yep im christian and i find all the debate really stimulating for the mind, i sit in neither camp, have always been like that, but i feel that if anything has to be proven, things have to be done logically and with fact. i dont see mud slinging as proving anything other than the lack of any parental responsibilities in upbringing with regards to predz23's case.

 

[j_m_s]

FWIW, the evolution theory was discredited.

 

[evident]

i'm a creationist and i tend to look at both sides with a rather open mind, and yet i still believe in God. Darwin's finches doesn't prove Evolution at all, it's been debated over for years now. It's too much to go into here, but if you're serious on discussing and debating do PM me and we'll find a much more suitable medium...

one thing i'd like to add is that. through images A-F, i see variation not "a new species". a is a finch, b is a finch, c is a finch, d is a finch, e is a finch, and f is most certainly a finch..i do not see either of the finches growing snouts, or horns, or paws...even within it's mutation (i.e 3 wings, 1 foot, 6 claws..) they are still limited to "finch dna", it won't grow 2 finch wings and 1 dragonfly wing.

so i really don't see how evolution can actually take place...and further more why it has stopped (or are we still evolving? then how does evolution work? in suddenly bursts or gradual change). something they still have to reconcile..and also if evolution is "survival of the fittest", why are the "unfit" still surviving? and even better than the supposed "fitter" beings.

 

[gorilla]

Discussing this is pointless if you're not part of an academic body tasked with doing so. Because first of all, we have things like this and this that negate any progress on both sides. I have never read anything more interesting than this one.

No amount of evidence is going to convince the Creationist, and no amount of trust is going to convince the Evolutionist. Unless (a) God shows Himself or (b) someone who can rewind and forward space time, create matter from nothing, take away the sun and then return it, shows himself and claims he is human. Both (a) and (b) are either infinite assumptions or baseless, in turn resulting in (c) we die, believe it or not.

Good stuff...so yea.. basically want to proof, give 100%(not 99%) evidence if not its FAKE! lol...(Y)

 

[predz23]

Whoever does not believe in Evolution needs to read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Its all about the evidence for evolution

 

[theliverevolution]

They have THE RIGHT to be offended, and so do I with their nonsense ideas
and btw it was never about science vs religion, its about religious people trying to deceive the public into thinking creationism is science

Dood, don't forget that this "Nonsense Idea" of Creation is very much linked to religion. By quickly and carelessly disclaiming Creation as a "Nonsense Idea", it seems like you are trying to attack religion in a more subtle way.

Let's be open and not start condemning any side too quickly?


Anyway, back to topic.
I'm a Christian, and inevitably, I believe in the Creation of the world was by God, due to faith and looking at evidence that support Creation. Of course, I do not discount the fact that there are people who believe in Evolution, and they have evidence that some kind of evolution took place on earth.

Of course, I agree with what gutturalpiss said. Unless we can go back in time to see how the evolution occurred, or until God shows Himself to man, neither side would be convinced and it'll just be an ongoing debate that would never end

 

[theliverevolution]

Whoever does not believe in Evolution needs to read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Its all about the evidence for evolution

True, but there is also evidence that support Creation as well. There is a magazine (which I need to double check the title) which uses scientific research to support Creation (and tries to refute some claims by Evolutionist's theories)

 

[ymmak]

Whoever does not believe in Evolution needs to read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Its all about the evidence for evolution

I probably will believe in evolution after reading Richard Dawkins' book, but I certainly do not find your comments, mud slingings and sweeping statements about evolution convincing.

 

[evident]

Good stuff...so yea.. basically want to proof, give 100%(not 99%) evidence if not its FAKE! lol...(Y)

that's quite close-minded. given that you accept evolution so quickly as a theory that you don't know 100% about. know that scientist don't know everything about evolution and that there are many unanswered question that they say they have not found out about...yet. so accepting something else just because you refuse to believe in something is not exactly a good thing, and requires much more faith.

Whoever does not believe in Evolution needs to read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Its all about the evidence for evolution

hahaha...seriously?

Discussing this is pointless if you're not part of an academic body tasked with doing so. Because first of all, we have things like this and this that negate any progress on both sides. I have never read anything more interesting than this one.

No amount of evidence is going to convince the Creationist, and no amount of trust is going to convince the Evolutionist. Unless (a) God shows Himself or (b) someone who can rewind and forward space time, create matter from nothing, take away the sun and then return it, shows himself and claims he is human. Both (a) and (b) are either infinite assumptions or baseless, in turn resulting in (c) we die, believe it or not.
i as a Christian do not agree with Pascal's wager, because that goes against the very basis of Christianity itself. And i'm actually more inclined to agree with the "Atheist's wager", however that is assuming that one does not know God. To know God and to reject him is another matter altogether; God is good but God is just. What just God would allow sin into Paradise (making it no different as Earth once again). I've no idea what the secret doctrine is about but it sounds like an interesting read, i'll check it out.

 

[widdly]

It is possible to reconcile a belief in Evolution and Creation. After all the creation story in Genesis need not be literal and there is a lot of indication in the story itself that it is allegorical. For example, Genisis 5:5 - "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

How about God creating the delicate balance in the laws of physics that has allowed the history of the universe to play out the way it has. That way evolution, science, and the universe are all part of a greater plan but still fit into a logical framework. After all "Reason is God’s crowning gift to man"

 

[predz23]

There is NO evidence for creation, their "evidence" comes from gaps in evolution. like I've said before creationists look at whats missing instead of whats there. And again like I've said before if we discover Species A, C, D and F, the creationists will argue that because Species B and E have not been discovered evolution is false. Even though we've discovered Species A, C, D and F. They will ignore the evidence that IS there and focus on the evidence that ISN'T there. Youtube will provide a lot of explanation for evolution and debunk common creationist claims. or you could visit talkorigins.org

 

[theliverevolution]

Not really. You being a bit narrow by focusing on the evolution of animals. The whole idea of evolution is not just about how we are formed, but how the world is created. The problem I see about evolutionist's data is that they merely focus on how different animals "evoluted", but not on the rest of the idea

 

[teleplayer]

It is possible to reconcile a belief in Evolution and Creation.

Yeah. I agree. Let's say, if evolution is true, then there has to be something there to start it all. Let's say, if creation is true, then evolutionists would demand proofs. I feel that there has to be creation before evolution. I won't say creation/evolution is a fake theory or something.. but evolution and creation have to co-exist together.. Existence is the result of Creation and Evolution can only occur when living things exist and that would require Creation...

in my humble opinion.