Dugujuijian
New member
Erm does evolution states that all living things come from a cell which is made out of non-living things? Just a question.
Proof of Evolution
- Thread starter Vaiyen
- Start date
predz23
New member
.............................No
predz23
New member
To ymmak
Ok, so you don't think dolphins and whales evolved from a land dwelling ancestor? Because you don't think such a radical change is possible? Do you feel like a land dwelling mammal evolving into dolphins and whales is so strange that its comparable to a cow evolving into a bird? I'm gonna assume thats what you think.
heres a few evidences I know
1.) when dolphins and whales swim, the spine goes up and down in a wavy motion just like a land mammal's spine does when the land mammal is sprinting. Fish spine goes side to side
2.) Whales have remnants of hind legs and still have remnants of pelvics
3.) They have genetic similarity to land mammals
4.) In whale embryology, whale embryo develops hair only to be abandoned later. Why? because they still have the genes to produce hair, from their ancestors. Also the legs are slightly visible and end up being abandoned later too. Baleen whales (whales that have teeth that look like brush) develop teeth in the womb, then later the teeth disappear and turn into baleen.
In the womb they also develop nostrils first, then as it progresses the nostrils merge on top the head forming a blowhole.
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
5.) It makes chronological sense. Evolution lets species explore opportunities too. Fossil evidence suggests whale ancestors took to the water after the reptilian predators of the sea went extinct
Ok, so you don't think dolphins and whales evolved from a land dwelling ancestor? Because you don't think such a radical change is possible? Do you feel like a land dwelling mammal evolving into dolphins and whales is so strange that its comparable to a cow evolving into a bird? I'm gonna assume thats what you think.
heres a few evidences I know
1.) when dolphins and whales swim, the spine goes up and down in a wavy motion just like a land mammal's spine does when the land mammal is sprinting. Fish spine goes side to side
2.) Whales have remnants of hind legs and still have remnants of pelvics
3.) They have genetic similarity to land mammals
4.) In whale embryology, whale embryo develops hair only to be abandoned later. Why? because they still have the genes to produce hair, from their ancestors. Also the legs are slightly visible and end up being abandoned later too. Baleen whales (whales that have teeth that look like brush) develop teeth in the womb, then later the teeth disappear and turn into baleen.
In the womb they also develop nostrils first, then as it progresses the nostrils merge on top the head forming a blowhole.
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
5.) It makes chronological sense. Evolution lets species explore opportunities too. Fossil evidence suggests whale ancestors took to the water after the reptilian predators of the sea went extinct
EngelFaeuste
New member
About a hifi_killie-billy like you? Aww don't be sad, you want a cake?
Yay, it seems superstition, myths and lies in the age of logic and reason are well and alive! Looks like you can live comfortable off it too, well I'll be damned, BENNY HINN HAS A PRIVATE JET!!!
Excellent, might be useful information in the field of psychiatry, you know, treating hallucinating lunatics?
Last edited:
EngelFaeuste
New member
I'm ok with creationists like you, as long as you don't try to push it on anyone
. Not like Hifi_killie-billy here who lives up in the hills and talks to a burning marijuana bush everyday. Maybe that's why he thinks the bush is talking to him.Erm, you telling the obvious? They aren't called mammals for nothing.
predz23
New member
well thank you captain obvious
hifi_killer
New member
engelfaeuste: thats one hell of an impressive reaction from you.
when i said 'nobody cares'. I didnt intend offend you. But if you took it with offence then perhaps you are too defensive?
Dont worry, i will not reply with with a similar attitude.
Would it surprise you , i tell you that your beloved, godly idea of 'conscious free will' is likely to be a myth too? Theres enough preliminary scientifc evidence to support that. But yea such discussion deserve another thread on itself, not here.
when i said 'nobody cares'. I didnt intend offend you. But if you took it with offence then perhaps you are too defensive?
Dont worry, i will not reply with with a similar attitude.
Indeed. superstition,myths and lies are alive. Consistent with evolutionary beliefs, if they serve an adaptive purpose well then they ought to be alive. Evolution had equipped human beings with innate mechanism to dissociate from the real world and fantasize, its a form of psychological defense/coping mechanism.
Would it surprise you , i tell you that your beloved, godly idea of 'conscious free will' is likely to be a myth too? Theres enough preliminary scientifc evidence to support that. But yea such discussion deserve another thread on itself, not here.
EngelFaeuste
New member
HAH! Weakling.
Hifi_killie-billy: I expected you to say "oh I didn't intend to offend you". Yea sure, I believe you
, like totally the lamest comeback ever. Don't worry I would come and f*ck you in your sleep. I saw your myspace. Dude how old are you, you look like a malnourished 15 year old scrawny midget. Ok... Show me the "preliminary scientific evidence". You're clearly biased against the godless, I believe I can be even more biased than you.
Damn I saw your video again, I feel so bad, picking on a small little midget... Sorry.
Last edited:
HAH! Weakling.
Hifi_killie-billy: I expected you to say "oh I didn't intend to offend you". Yea sure, I believe you
Ok... Show me the "preliminary scientific evidence". You're clearly biased against the godless, I believe I can be even more biased than you.
Damn I saw your video again, I feel so bad, picking on a small little midget... Sorry.
dude, this is a healthy debate please don't turn it ad hominem. don't turn it into a personal attack.
EngelFaeuste
New member
Sorry I couldn't resist it. I'll try not to respond to an ad hominem again (refer to "nobody cares"). It was just too tempting to resist.
ymmak
New member
Hi predz23, I see a very good attempt to try convincing me that whales could have evolved from land-dwelling mammals. I appreciate and respect your efforts and knowledge in this area. It was a good read.
However, you still havent see the main msg that I am trying to convey. You can put all the facts and knowledge on the table, but different people will interpret them different. As an illustration, I can interpret the facts that you have presented completely differently.
1) Their spines go up and down, unlike fishes, because... they are mammals. I see movement of spine as a reason why scientist classify whales as mammals and not as fish (it is a characteristic of mammals), and I choose not to infer that whales could have descended from land-dwelling mammals, just because their spines move up and down.
2) Remnant? How you know? Or how they know? Why not think of it as an mutation over the years to develop these so-called "hind legs"?
3) I have mentioned before that sharing genetic similarity does not necessarily mean that they evolved from common ancestor. Similar genetic material could mean that these similarities are crucial for survival in these animals, or that they have very important biological function that is critical in giving rise to what we call "life".
4) They developed hair in early stages only to be abandoned, maybe (I said maybe) when they were younger, they do not have enough body fats to withstand the cold of the waters. Mammals are warm-blooded, remember? They cannot survive drastic changes in temperature as well as fishes. However, if their adulthood, they could have enough body fats to withstand cold. So it makes reasonable sense that they develop hair and then lose it later. In view of this, I could say that they were created perfectly to live in the sea.
They have genes for nose, hairs and hind legs or whatever, but that doesnt mean they adopt these from their ancestors. You have assumed that they got these genes from a land-dwelling mammal.
5) You have already admitted that fossils "suggest" that so on and so forth. It is a suggestion, no proof yet. I think this kind of suggestion will require some confidence to believe in.
So you see, these facts above are good facts, but they will only become "evidences" of evolution if scientists interpret these facts the way you did. Someone else may interpret them the way I did, and they will not see any link between whales and land-dwelling mammals. As of yet, I have not known of any undisputable evidence for evolution, that everyone can concur with. Earlier on, you have juxtapose law of gravity to evolution, saying that evolution is as true as gravity, but I hope you see the difference between these two now. They are different because evidences (or the phenomenon) for gravity is indisputable. You throw an object out of your HDB window, they become killer litter (joking, I meant the object will fall). However, the "evidences" on evolution are still quite contentious, and somewhat speculative in nature.
And yeah, you may call me stubborn (I've realised it too) or slow to accept your interpretation of these facts. You may say that I have delibrately denied your "evidences". I admit that I am a stubborn fellow who needs more convincing to think that a radical evolution of one animal to another is possible.
Your interpretations of the facts above may eventually be proven right. You may be ahead of the curve now, but I am still comfortable with my beliefs.
Last edited:
hifi_killer
New member
ymmak said:
Well perhaps,extreme environmental events that coincide with the appearance of 'newly evolved features' could resolve such ambiguity, to show that it is indeed evolution, not just similarities that crucial for survival..
I dont know about aquatic creatures. But lets look at 'monkeys to man'. The period when monkeys supposedly evolved into upright creatures, correspond with the period where the african landmass is reshaped. I.e west africa - jungles , dense forest, monkeys remain monkeys. , east africa became grassland - upright posture serves an adaptive advantage thus monkeys began to 'walk'. Fossils that were dated before/during/after the environmental event could support this hypothesis.
So in essence it took a hell lot of extreme environmental events for monkeys to become men. Its unbelievable. But if you accept that the earth is 4.54 × 10^9 years old and assuming extreme environmental events happen every once every 10 000 years, then, there could really be so many extreme environmental events.
Last edited:
predz23
New member
no crime has ever been solved by one single piece of evidence, no scientific theory has every been proved by one piece of evidence. There is no such thing as one single undeniable proof of anything. But how can anyone be so ignorant and ignore the millions of other pieces of evidence, because there isn't one piece that undeniable proves it?
1.) the spines go up and down because they're mammals yes thats obvious. when evolution creates new species, the new species always has "baggage" of their descendants. thats why whales have lungs, breast feed their offspring and have spines that go up and down. Because they are mammals, that have evolved to live in water.
2.) How do I know that these legs are remnants? Because fossil evidence shows the hind legs getting smaller over time, not a useless 'recent' mutation.
3.) Yes thats why they share most common DNA with the Hippo, not just because they both spent a lot of time in the water, but also because they evolved from ungulates (hoofed animals)
4.) Wrong, because they loose the hair before they're even born, whales travel to warmer waters to give birth.
"They have genes for nose, hairs and hind legs or whatever, but that doesnt mean they adopt these from their ancestors. You have assumed that they got these genes from a land-dwelling mammal." Why else would they have them?
5.) Yeah I "suggest", but that word doesnt meant anything at this moment. I 'believe' the sky is blue, but I'm not making a blue sky religion am I? The fossils with the whale evolution starting and the reptilian sea creatures going extinct at the same time is unlikely to be coincidence
You might not think its possible for such a drastic change, but keep in mind the ancestor of whales and dolphins lived more than 50 million years ago. Who's to say with such small changes over +50 million years will not make a dolphin like animal
btw dude about your comments to other people interpreting the same evidence differently. It feels like you're purposely interpreting the evidence I put forth differently to teach me a lesson about understanding different thoughts
1.) the spines go up and down because they're mammals yes thats obvious. when evolution creates new species, the new species always has "baggage" of their descendants. thats why whales have lungs, breast feed their offspring and have spines that go up and down. Because they are mammals, that have evolved to live in water.
2.) How do I know that these legs are remnants? Because fossil evidence shows the hind legs getting smaller over time, not a useless 'recent' mutation.
3.) Yes thats why they share most common DNA with the Hippo, not just because they both spent a lot of time in the water, but also because they evolved from ungulates (hoofed animals)
4.) Wrong, because they loose the hair before they're even born, whales travel to warmer waters to give birth.
"They have genes for nose, hairs and hind legs or whatever, but that doesnt mean they adopt these from their ancestors. You have assumed that they got these genes from a land-dwelling mammal." Why else would they have them?
5.) Yeah I "suggest", but that word doesnt meant anything at this moment. I 'believe' the sky is blue, but I'm not making a blue sky religion am I? The fossils with the whale evolution starting and the reptilian sea creatures going extinct at the same time is unlikely to be coincidence
You might not think its possible for such a drastic change, but keep in mind the ancestor of whales and dolphins lived more than 50 million years ago. Who's to say with such small changes over +50 million years will not make a dolphin like animal
btw dude about your comments to other people interpreting the same evidence differently. It feels like you're purposely interpreting the evidence I put forth differently to teach me a lesson about understanding different thoughts
ymmak
New member
Yup, precisely, you have finally gotten the msg I have tried to convey since my very first post in this thread. True, not every crime is solved by a single conclusive evidence (BTW I strongly disagree that you have used "no crime has ever been...", because someone could rebut you and say "really?". Use hedging words instead). We put the facts on the table and analyse them. What separate facts from evidences is really the way we see what is on the table. But there are many phenonmenon like gravity, thermodynamic, Reynold transport theorem, that have proven themselves to be indisputable, meaning that they can be replicated in many different models and prototypes and get predictable results anyday, anytime. But as of today, evolution lacks this indisputability (Well, it is still early to say, since the study on evolution is still an infancy compared to Newtonian mechanics, so maybe in a few years down the road, evolution may be proven right afterall). Evolution, in a sense, is less proven, than say gravity, so it is inevitably a contentious subject.
BTW, you have a nice discussion on whales up there, I guess I have to concede in regards to these whales. But that is just about whales, what about the rest of the animals. LOL, maybe with a bit more convincing, I may believe that whales do evolve from land-dwelling mammals, but I will still doubt that the same thing applies to all other animals. To be honest, to say that all the organisms we see today are evolved from a single ancestor, is really a mouthful for me to swallow. Too ambitious, maybe...
Sorry, if I have appeared condescending or offensive to you. I totally accept your decision to go in favor of evolution, I have many friends who believes in evolution too. I may disagree with them, but life goes on and we are still good friends who went through the thick and thin of NS, ICT, and RT. No offence.
Haha, I suspect you have a hidden meaning behind the cartoon. You are hinting that I am looking for evidences after arriving at the conclusion, right? In regards to this, I am sorry that I have made you feel this way, but at least I hope I have not make you feel that creationism is science, which you what you said you detest. But I hope I have showed you that even science, no matter how rationale or logical it may be, it can easily be skewed (or even warped). I think no amount of defence will do me any good, since it appears that you have already a preconceptual impression that I am looking for evidences after arriving at the conclusion. Likewise, if I were to say the same about you arriving at the conclusion that evolution is true before seeking the evidence, no amount of words can justify or be a good defence.
But do notice the difference between me and the cartoon. I have not seek to find any evidence to prove my faith (my religion or whatever you call it). I have mentioned earlier in a post in response to engelfaeuste, that it is almost inpossible to justify one's religion like how you can justify that all spontaneous chemical reactions have negative change in Gibbs free energy. I dont seek to justify my faith here, as seen that I have not given any single religion-related evidences to support my arguments. Rather I have adhere closely to the "scientific method" as depicted in the cartoon, in this discussion. The facts are on the table, but unfortunately, we draw different conclusions.
Let me put things into perspective once again, as I usually find myself doing in SOFT.
1. The fact that SOME of you guys are arguing over the ideas of evolution like a bunch of playground primates shows that SOME (emphasis on SOME, not all) of you can hardly call ourselves intellectually evolved, much less competent thinkers (This ONLY refers to those who have incited rudimentary reasonings, and no one else.) The only thing that SEEMS to have evolved - based on the limited sampling from these forums - is the means of communication (i.e. Internet). Other than that, it's hardly different from a caveman ramming his club against a stone wall and grunting "Me, good. grrrr argh argh argh you bad!!!"
2. We eat, we drink, we fart, we sneeze, we think, we talk, we sh**, we lovelovelovelove, we work, we play, we snort, we smoke, we choke, we live, we die, we laugh and we YouTube.
So who really gives a hoot about evolution? Maybe the scientists, and a few stragglers who are interested in the subject. The evolution of human beings is exceedingly gradual, taking place over thousands and thousands and thousands of years, so unless you've been buried in the Pet Cemetry, it's not going to affect your life in any positive way - unless you're one of the above.
All the while, God has yet to show himself in any palpable, tangible way. In order for anyone who believes in Creationism to assert his beliefs onto others, it is mandatory for him to first prove the existence of God. Seeing that no one has yet to do so (Apart from the mind-bogglingly overused noun known as 'Faith' - unusable in any debate that steeps itself in facts), all arguments of that vein can only be deemed to be wholly theoretical - not exactly a boat that floats on the waters of logic.
Evolution may not be entirely water-proof, it may be improbable in some cases, but damned if it doesn't make a little more sense than the idea of an all-empowering, omnipotent being who waves his hand and creates trees and birds and tadpoles and knows my every thought, movement, motive and bowel movement. Show me God and I'll show you the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. I can't prove that the Tooth Fairy or Santa exists, because they don't. Can you show me God? Just because something is widely heralded doesn't make it true.
Very much like Wile E. Coyote trying to catch the Road Runner, a Creationist will always be chasing the facts but never quite catching up with them.
Evolution FTW!
1. The fact that SOME of you guys are arguing over the ideas of evolution like a bunch of playground primates shows that SOME (emphasis on SOME, not all) of you can hardly call ourselves intellectually evolved, much less competent thinkers (This ONLY refers to those who have incited rudimentary reasonings, and no one else.) The only thing that SEEMS to have evolved - based on the limited sampling from these forums - is the means of communication (i.e. Internet). Other than that, it's hardly different from a caveman ramming his club against a stone wall and grunting "Me, good. grrrr argh argh argh you bad!!!"
2. We eat, we drink, we fart, we sneeze, we think, we talk, we sh**, we lovelovelovelove, we work, we play, we snort, we smoke, we choke, we live, we die, we laugh and we YouTube.
So who really gives a hoot about evolution? Maybe the scientists, and a few stragglers who are interested in the subject. The evolution of human beings is exceedingly gradual, taking place over thousands and thousands and thousands of years, so unless you've been buried in the Pet Cemetry, it's not going to affect your life in any positive way - unless you're one of the above.
All the while, God has yet to show himself in any palpable, tangible way. In order for anyone who believes in Creationism to assert his beliefs onto others, it is mandatory for him to first prove the existence of God. Seeing that no one has yet to do so (Apart from the mind-bogglingly overused noun known as 'Faith' - unusable in any debate that steeps itself in facts), all arguments of that vein can only be deemed to be wholly theoretical - not exactly a boat that floats on the waters of logic.
Evolution may not be entirely water-proof, it may be improbable in some cases, but damned if it doesn't make a little more sense than the idea of an all-empowering, omnipotent being who waves his hand and creates trees and birds and tadpoles and knows my every thought, movement, motive and bowel movement. Show me God and I'll show you the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. I can't prove that the Tooth Fairy or Santa exists, because they don't. Can you show me God? Just because something is widely heralded doesn't make it true.
Very much like Wile E. Coyote trying to catch the Road Runner, a Creationist will always be chasing the facts but never quite catching up with them.
Evolution FTW!
Last edited:
hifi_killer
New member
This thread isnt essentially about the existence of god.
The main argument is validity of generalising 'micro-evolution' to the larger context of evolution of life.
even though i'm for evolution,
To be fair, the creationism oriented people here did not try to assert their beliefs onto others, also rather most of their arguments demonstrate far more academic and scientific rigour than many anti-creationist/anti-religion folks.
The problem with most of us (me included) - the typical exam error. Vomit out everything we know about evolution without answering the question.
Last edited:
predz23
New member
we did recreate it, -->Dogs!!
I havent heard any scientist claim we all evolved from ONE common or even a single one ancestor. All I've heard is we all have common ancestorS, not one common ancestor. "But that is just about whales, what about the rest of the animals." AAAAAHHHH WHEN WILL THIS END?!?!? I think whales and dolphins evolving from land animals is less believable than some type of mammal evolving into todays mammals. Are you requesting more evidence for other animals? pls say no!
I think my mindset through this thread 'evolved' (LOL) from trying to prove evolution to trying to disprove creationism
I found that picture randomly, thats how I felt about creationists, it wasn't necessarily directed at you, just thought I'd share it. Yeah evolution can be skewed and warped, but so can any proven scientific fact with the right words.
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.