Holes in the theory of evolution

[ScienceRocks]

The people that use religion and idiocy to argue against evolution are a lot like the taliban. The same mindset.


It is scary to think that such people could get into power in America.

 

[Old Rocks]

Laws don't change. Theories change with every new discovery, like the discovery of fossils that had working compound eyes, long before they should have according to "theory". So they invent a new theory, and decide that maybe, somehow, eye evolution was put on the fast track by randomness and chance. Here is what you believe happens accidentally:

When an eye begins to develop, even in the simplest of living things, the genetic code < (programed instructions) responsible for the eye, programs the body to start growing 2 million nerve endings from the eyes that move through the flesh toward the brain. And another 2 million from the brain moving through the flesh toward the eyes. These optic nerves must then find and match up with it's correct mate for the eye to function. That is design, not a crap shoot. The fact that the eye has the ability to transmit to the brain over 1 and 1/2 million messages simultaneously, at 300 miles an hour is just the icing on the cake. The working eye is complex at it's core. Nothing random or simple about it. It is a work of art.

Psalm 139:14
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

Goddamn, are you full of shit;

The Poor Design of the Human Eye

The vast majority of people will suffer significant loss of visual function in their lifetimes, and for many people, it starts even before puberty. I got glasses after my first eye exam when I was in the second grade. Who knows how long I had actually needed them? My vision isn’t just a little blurry; it’s terrible. My lenses are -4.25 diopters, which means my vision is somewhere around 20/400. Had I been born before, say, 1600, I would probably have gone through life unable to do anything that required me to see further than arm’s length. In pre-history, I would have been worthless as a hunter. Or a gatherer, for that matter.

Compare this to the excellent vision of most birds, especially birds of prey, such as eagles and condors. Their visual acuity at great distances puts even the best human eyes to shame. Many birds can see a broader range of wavelengths than we can also, including ultraviolet light. In fact, migrating birds detect north and south poles with their eyes. It’s not clear if they are consciously aware of this perception, but it seems likely to me that they are, considering this information is conveyed by the same nerves that relay vision. This would mean that some birds can actually see the earth’s magnetic field.

Many birds also have an additional translucent eyelid that allows them to look directly into the sun, at length, without damaging their retinas.

The superiority of the bird eye shows that whatever designed the human eye, be it nature or a deity, is capable of producing eyes that are much better than the human eye. The question of why nature didn’t provide humans with better eyes is easily answered by evolutionary theory: it wasn’t strongly selected for. Alternatively, why an intelligent designer would deny his favorite creatures the excellent vision that he provided lowly birds is quite a mystery.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Here dumbass:

• Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”
  
• Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
  
• Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”
  
• Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

It is mathematically impossible for a living cell to form randomly, no matter how much you want to believe it did. There is zero randomness in DNA.

Fact
Creatures have evolved

Fact
Creatures adapt to their environment. They do not morph into other creatures. Monkeys continue to be monkeys. Man continues to be man.

Populations of species continue to adapt to their ever-changing environment until those populations are unrecognizable as the same species. There is no arbitrary line at which adaptation, or evolution, stops.

Different populations of species of monkeys continue to adapt until they are no longer be categorizable as the same species of monkeys. Eventually so much time passes that we would not, if we were still around to observe the populations, recognize the species of monkeys as monkeys at all but as an entirely new species, even a new genus. After hundreds of millions or billions of years, perhaps even a new phylum.

If that were the case, there would be no more monkeys, they would all be men now. .

No- this is where you just expose your ignorance regarding the theory of evolution.

Monkeys never become men.

That is like you saying that your grandfather became you.

Monkeys and Humans have a common ancestor far back in our family tree- and monkeys became monkeys and humans became humans.

And then quit evolving? What stopped this inexorable force of DNA mistakes? Here is another problem for you, and whomever suggested trial and error. If an error sends a species on a different track, one more "error" and it is now on a completely different track than the one the original error was directing it to. No species could form. Thesee constant mistakes you think DNA codes make

e
It is mathematically impossible for a living cell to form randomly, no matter how much you want to believe it did. There is zero randomness in DNA.

According to who?

One of your own. Richard Dawkins.
Here is his calculation for just 1 of 4 strands of a hemoglobin molecule forming randomly. It is 1 in 10 to the 190th power.
Now weigh this: that is one with 190 zero's behind it. (A trillion has 12 zeros). And even at those odds it only works if they are intelligently and mechanically isolated and in close proximity. Now calculate the odds of all 4 strands getting lucky to the 190th degree all at once. In primordial sludge. It just didn't happen.

Again- according to whom?

You provide no citation- you mention Richard Dawkins with no link.

And none of this has to do with evolution.

The theory of evolution does not include how life was created. The theory of evolution explains how life on earth is now.

And the theory of evolution is the scientific theory that best matches the evidence we have- and I will point out- you have presented no compelling alternative- other than 'na aaa'

The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins
In that case how do you explain a modern birds mouth? They evolved into jaws and teeth, then devolved in to a beak?

Nothing 'devolves'- organisms 'evolve'

A beak is perfect for birds- much lighter weight than our heavy jaws.

Now- what is your competing and compelling theory that explains life on earth?

Evolution birds evolved with teeth and jaws. Heavy teeth, then backtracked to beak. Apparently.

And some scientists believe that humans are devolving now.

So I guess we are just going to overlook the statistics regarding the probability of your theory.
Let's talk sex. Trial and error cannot apply if the mutated new species is to survive. Here's why. Let's say over millions of years, a single celled amoeba has finally made enough mistakes to become a female lion. You then have to believe that somewhere millions of years ago, some other amoeba started making the exact, same mistakes, yet different mistakes and the result was a male lion. And they met on Match.com, and thank pond scum, those mutated parts seem to fit one another perfectly, and they continued the species.

It's either all or nothing with reproductive parts, If they take time to evolve, the species is done. Cells that are imperfect tend to die rather than thrive.
Same with teeth. For one to be able to chew, not only did the amoeba have to finally create teeth through trial and error, or mutation of the genes it possessed when it had no teeth, but the upper jaw had to know what the bottom jaw was doing to prepare it's upper counterpart. Otherwise there would just be teeth all over the place. To be able to close your mouth or chew is the result of a DNA code, not randomness. So are sexual organs.

As for my belief:

Psalm 139:14
............ I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Laws don't change. Theories change with every new discovery, like the discovery of fossils that had working compound eyes, long before they should have according to "theory". So they invent a new theory, and decide that maybe, somehow, eye evolution was put on the fast track by randomness and chance. Here is what you believe happens accidentally:

When an eye begins to develop, even in the simplest of living things, the genetic code < (programed instructions) responsible for the eye, programs the body to start growing 2 million nerve endings from the eyes that move through the flesh toward the brain. And another 2 million from the brain moving through the flesh toward the eyes. These optic nerves must then find and match up with it's correct mate for the eye to function. That is design, not a crap shoot. The fact that the eye has the ability to transmit to the brain over 1 and 1/2 million messages simultaneously, at 300 miles an hour is just the icing on the cake. The working eye is complex at it's core. Nothing random or simple about it. It is a work of art.

Psalm 139:14
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

Goddamn, are you full of shit;

The Poor Design of the Human Eye

The vast majority of people will suffer significant loss of visual function in their lifetimes, and for many people, it starts even before puberty. I got glasses after my first eye exam when I was in the second grade. Who knows how long I had actually needed them? My vision isn’t just a little blurry; it’s terrible. My lenses are -4.25 diopters, which means my vision is somewhere around 20/400. Had I been born before, say, 1600, I would probably have gone through life unable to do anything that required me to see further than arm’s length. In pre-history, I would have been worthless as a hunter. Or a gatherer, for that matter.

Compare this to the excellent vision of most birds, especially birds of prey, such as eagles and condors. Their visual acuity at great distances puts even the best human eyes to shame. Many birds can see a broader range of wavelengths than we can also, including ultraviolet light. In fact, migrating birds detect north and south poles with their eyes. It’s not clear if they are consciously aware of this perception, but it seems likely to me that they are, considering this information is conveyed by the same nerves that relay vision. This would mean that some birds can actually see the earth’s magnetic field.

Many birds also have an additional translucent eyelid that allows them to look directly into the sun, at length, without damaging their retinas.

The superiority of the bird eye shows that whatever designed the human eye, be it nature or a deity, is capable of producing eyes that are much better than the human eye. The question of why nature didn’t provide humans with better eyes is easily answered by evolutionary theory: it wasn’t strongly selected for. Alternatively, why an intelligent designer would deny his favorite creatures the excellent vision that he provided lowly birds is quite a mystery.

Then let's capitulate to Darwin's take on the eye:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Here he is trying to make the absurd not so absurd and insuperable:

“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

Insuperable:
adjective
adjective: insuperable
(of a difficulty or obstacle) impossible to overcome. insurmountable.

In his imagining random sight is absurd. Mine too.
For the design to work 2 million nerve endings need to know that their job is to travel through matter and find their exact mate. That is not random. That is programed code. You just happen to believe that it randomly occurred. I do not.

 

[The Irish Ram]

As for your poor vision, maybe your mom drank to much, or maybe too much trip? Even pop/soda may be capable of screwing up DNA.

 

[IsaacNewton]

No it was not. It was taught as the true evolutionary progress to Modern Man. You are referring to the new improved truth.
And while evolution has us ever upwardly mobile, you now have another problem. According to science you are now devolving. Pretty soon you are all going to be monkeys again.

No wonder why you refuse evolutionary biology, because you have no knowledge of it....

And your personal attacks reveal you know even less....
If you count the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes necessary to create life, the probability of their discovering one another by random shuffling or chance is less than 1 in 10 to the 400000th degree. A number science considers an impossibility. DNA is a design not an accident.

Probabilities are only generalized predictors. The event could have happened the very first time. You can flip a coin 1,000 times and you should get 500 heads and 500 tails. But you could get 1,000 tails the first time you tried it. So it could have happened at any point.

 

[IsaacNewton]

DNA is a fact. It is complex from the beginning. It has codes. Extremely complex codes. Complex is the opposite of simple. DNA is a how and why that removes theory. Even the little we understand about DNA proves difficult to the evolutionist. The word simple cannot be used to describe DNA. Evolution goes from simple to complex. DNA does not. In fact back in the day, DNA was even more complex than it is now.

Who ever claimed life is simple?
DNA is genetic code which provides the building blocks of how we were formed and from where

What we know for a fact is that life evolved. There were no complex life forms when life was created. Man did not ride dinosaurs. The gradual evolution of life is a fact

How were those blocks built?

Trial and error, filling a void

What you can't refute is that there were no complex creatures when life was created. We can see through geologic evidence how life evolved and when

That is PROOF of evolution

Not even close. DNA is programed to self correct. There is nothing in DNA that suggests trial and error.

The building blocks of life are amino acids. The proteins needed to create a living cell have hundreds of thin tiny strands, (covered with a variety of amino acids), one millionth the size of a human hair. Amino acids have side groups of atoms. If one atom goes to the wrong side of the thread, life for that cell is impossible. Evolution wants you to believe that randomness and chance are reliable enough to get it right every time.
Concerning your chart, did you know those crazy archeologists dug up perfectly working compound eyes from the Cambrian period? Not thought to exist or be possible at that early stage.

DNA self corrects? Does it have a consensus first?

Cancer is DNA not able to correct itself. If this is the work of a 'creator' he is an incompetent newb.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually it is from a source that quoted Fred Hoyle, that I read in the nineties, The Signature of God. I highly recommend it. You'll find the quote on page 124. But you googling for knowledge is good too.

You may want to also google right handed and left handed proteins, and the odds of amino acids lining up solely on the left side which is necessary for life, (all none life atoms are 50% right handed, and 50% left handed). It is also out of the realm of scientific possibility for them all to line up on the left. I know the math, but there no substitute for elevating one's own awareness, so get back to me when you find the equation, and we'll discuss the lack of probability it posses.

As far as gaining knowledge, do it by whatever means available.

Chiral selection on inorganic crystalline surfaces : Abstract : Nature Materials

Chiral selection on inorganic crystalline surfaces
Robert M. Hazen1 & David S. Sholl2

Abstract
From synthetic drugs to biodegradable plastics to the origin of life, the chiral selection of molecules presents both daunting challenges and significant opportunities in materials science. Among the most promising, yet little explored, avenues for chiral molecular discrimination is adsorption on chiral crystalline surfaces — periodic environments that can select, concentrate and possibly even organize molecules into polymers and other macromolecular structures. Here we review experimental and theoretical approaches to chiral selection on inorganic crystalline surfaces — research that is poised to open this new frontier in understanding and exploiting surface-molecule interactions

 

[Old Rocks]

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja070451k

The role in prebiotic chemistry that Brønsted and Lewis sites, both present at the surface of common aluminosilicates, may have played in favoring the peptide bond formation has been addressed by ab initio methods within a cluster approach. B3LYP/6-31+G(d,p) free energy potential energy surfaces have been fully characterized for the model reaction glycine + NH3 → 2-NH2 acetamide (mimicking the true 2 Gly → GlyGly one) occurring on (i) a Lewis site, (ii) a Brønsted site, and (iii) a combined action of Lewis/Brønsted sites. Compared to the gas-phase (gp) activation free energy of 50 kcal/mol, the Lewis site alone reduces the gp barrier to 41 kcal/mol, whereas the activation by the Brønsted site dramatically reduces the barrier to about 18 kcal/mol. Nevertheless, formation of the prereactant complex in this latter case will rarely occur, since water will easily displace the glycine molecule interacting with the Brønsted site. However, if a realistic feldspar surface with neighboring Brønsted and Lewis sites is considered, the proper prereactant complex is highly stabilized by a simultaneous interaction with the Lewis and the Brønsted sites, in such a way that the Lewis site strongly attaches the glycine molecule to the surface whereas the Brønsted site efficiently catalyzes the condensation reaction, showing that the interplay between Lewis/Brønsted sites is an important issue. The free energy barrier computed for the realistic feldspar surface model is 26 kcal/mol. The role of dispersive interactions on the free energy barrier and the stabilization of the final product, not accounted for by the B3LYP functional, have been estimated and shown to be substantial. Speculations about further elongation of the formed dipeptide have been put forward on the basis of the relatively strong interaction energy of the formed GlyGly dipeptide with the aluminosilicate surface.

The cavities in the feldspars also favor the chirality that we see in the present amino acids.

 

[Old Rocks]

Laws don't change. Theories change with every new discovery, like the discovery of fossils that had working compound eyes, long before they should have according to "theory". So they invent a new theory, and decide that maybe, somehow, eye evolution was put on the fast track by randomness and chance. Here is what you believe happens accidentally:

When an eye begins to develop, even in the simplest of living things, the genetic code < (programed instructions) responsible for the eye, programs the body to start growing 2 million nerve endings from the eyes that move through the flesh toward the brain. And another 2 million from the brain moving through the flesh toward the eyes. These optic nerves must then find and match up with it's correct mate for the eye to function. That is design, not a crap shoot. The fact that the eye has the ability to transmit to the brain over 1 and 1/2 million messages simultaneously, at 300 miles an hour is just the icing on the cake. The working eye is complex at it's core. Nothing random or simple about it. It is a work of art.

Psalm 139:14
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

Goddamn, are you full of shit;

The Poor Design of the Human Eye

The vast majority of people will suffer significant loss of visual function in their lifetimes, and for many people, it starts even before puberty. I got glasses after my first eye exam when I was in the second grade. Who knows how long I had actually needed them? My vision isn’t just a little blurry; it’s terrible. My lenses are -4.25 diopters, which means my vision is somewhere around 20/400. Had I been born before, say, 1600, I would probably have gone through life unable to do anything that required me to see further than arm’s length. In pre-history, I would have been worthless as a hunter. Or a gatherer, for that matter.

Compare this to the excellent vision of most birds, especially birds of prey, such as eagles and condors. Their visual acuity at great distances puts even the best human eyes to shame. Many birds can see a broader range of wavelengths than we can also, including ultraviolet light. In fact, migrating birds detect north and south poles with their eyes. It’s not clear if they are consciously aware of this perception, but it seems likely to me that they are, considering this information is conveyed by the same nerves that relay vision. This would mean that some birds can actually see the earth’s magnetic field.

Many birds also have an additional translucent eyelid that allows them to look directly into the sun, at length, without damaging their retinas.

The superiority of the bird eye shows that whatever designed the human eye, be it nature or a deity, is capable of producing eyes that are much better than the human eye. The question of why nature didn’t provide humans with better eyes is easily answered by evolutionary theory: it wasn’t strongly selected for. Alternatively, why an intelligent designer would deny his favorite creatures the excellent vision that he provided lowly birds is quite a mystery.

Then let's capitulate to Darwin's take on the eye:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Here he is trying to make the absurd not so absurd and insuperable:

“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

Insuperable:
adjective
adjective: insuperable
(of a difficulty or obstacle) impossible to overcome. insurmountable.

In his imagining random sight is absurd. Mine too.
For the design to work 2 million nerve endings need to know that their job is to travel through matter and find their exact mate. That is not random. That is programed code. You just happen to believe that it randomly occurred. I do not.

Yes, let us look at Darwin's take on the eye. Without cherry picking a couple of paragraphs that he wrote. Let us look at all of what he wrote on that subject;

Evolution -- Evolution of the Eye

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Ffs.

Here dumbass:

• Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”
  
• Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”
  
• Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”
  
• Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.

It is mathematically impossible for a living cell to form randomly, no matter how much you want to believe it did. There is zero randomness in DNA.

Fact
Creatures have evolved

Fact
Creatures adapt to their environment. They do not morph into other creatures. Monkeys continue to be monkeys. Man continues to be man.

Populations of species continue to adapt to their ever-changing environment until those populations are unrecognizable as the same species. There is no arbitrary line at which adaptation, or evolution, stops.

Different populations of species of monkeys continue to adapt until they are no longer be categorizable as the same species of monkeys. Eventually so much time passes that we would not, if we were still around to observe the populations, recognize the species of monkeys as monkeys at all but as an entirely new species, even a new genus. After hundreds of millions or billions of years, perhaps even a new phylum.

If that were the case, there would be no more monkeys, they would all be men now. Monkey DNA continues to be monkey DNA. Human DNA continues to be human. If it takes millions of years to morph from monkey to man, we would literally be walking on the millions of transitional skeletons of monkeymen. But because DNA is self correcting, it conflicts will your view that DNA makes a mistake and then for millions of years never corrects and indeed makes the same mistake without fail < never making another mistake or reverting to it's original program, until something with a whole new DNA program emerges.
One celled amoebas have always had complex DNA. If they were the first signs of life, then either their DNA has never made a mistake, or it did and then corrected, as it is designed<(programed by someone) to do because single celled amoebas continue after millions and millions and millions of years to be single celled amoebas.

Humans or human-like organisms aren't the "goal" or ending-point of evolution. Evolution has no end-point. Every population of organisms continue to evolve forever while there is life.

You are walking around on millions and billions of transitional skeletons and fossils; it's just that they haven't survived intact. Fossils are the product of very specific and rare factors. Something like 99.999% of organisms' remains do not become preserved enough to study, let alone to be discovered.

DNA is self-correcting, but not perfectly so. Most mistakes are discarded, but sometimes the self-correcting function itself is corrupted. That can turn into cancer. Cancer itself is a product of DNA evolution. More importantly, DNA doesn't recognize "mistakes" in the way you think is a mistake. Right now, were you to have your genome mapped, you'd find that some of your DNA is the same as a retrovirus.

At some point in the past one of your ancestors was infected by a virus which inserted it's DNA into the his/her reproductive cells. The DNA was benign and inserted into a benign section of the strand. Then it was copied and combined with the reproductive cells of your ancestor's mate. This happened over and over again until you. You're ancestors DNA auto-correcting function did not recognize the retrovirus DNA as a mistake. Here's where it gets interesting:

Some of that retrovirus DNA is identical in its make-up and identical in its location on your genome as it is on the same genome of chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and other primates. That right there is strong supporting evidence for common ancestry.

Not all organisms evolve into what we would consider a new genus or species. Your amoebas, for example. They've adapted to their niche environment which doesn't change significantly. So they're still around, even if they are now what we would consider a different species of amoebas. Same with sharks, reptiles like the alligator, insects like the cockroach, bacteria and viruses, and other organisms. They still aren't the same species as they were 65 million years ago, but have evolved into new species of sharks, alligators, cockroaches, bacteria and viruses.

Evolution happens. No biologist thinks it didn't. None, zero. All biologists know that populations of organisms evolve. It is sttled science. Natural selection is just one theory as to how populations evolve. Evolution = fact. Natural selection = theory explaining the fact.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Ffs.

e
It is mathematically impossible for a living cell to form randomly, no matter how much you want to believe it did. There is zero randomness in DNA.

According to who?

One of your own. Richard Dawkins.
Here is his calculation for just 1 of 4 strands of a hemoglobin molecule forming randomly. It is 1 in 10 to the 190th power.
Now weigh this: that is one with 190 zero's behind it. (A trillion has 12 zeros). And even at those odds it only works if they are intelligently and mechanically isolated and in close proximity. Now calculate the odds of all 4 strands getting lucky to the 190th degree all at once. In primordial sludge. It just didn't happen.

Again- according to whom?

You provide no citation- you mention Richard Dawkins with no link.

And none of this has to do with evolution.

The theory of evolution does not include how life was created. The theory of evolution explains how life on earth is now.

And the theory of evolution is the scientific theory that best matches the evidence we have- and I will point out- you have presented no compelling alternative- other than 'na aaa'

The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins
In that case how do you explain a modern birds mouth? They evolved into jaws and teeth, then devolved in to a beak?

There is no such thing in biology as "devolved". There is only evolved. Even if an organism evolves a beak, then teeth and jaws, then evolves a beak again, it is still just evolving. Evolution only goes forward through time, it doesn't reverse course.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Fact
Creatures have evolved

Fact
Creatures adapt to their environment. They do not morph into other creatures. Monkeys continue to be monkeys. Man continues to be man.

Populations of species continue to adapt to their ever-changing environment until those populations are unrecognizable as the same species. There is no arbitrary line at which adaptation, or evolution, stops.

Different populations of species of monkeys continue to adapt until they are no longer be categorizable as the same species of monkeys. Eventually so much time passes that we would not, if we were still around to observe the populations, recognize the species of monkeys as monkeys at all but as an entirely new species, even a new genus. After hundreds of millions or billions of years, perhaps even a new phylum.

If that were the case, there would be no more monkeys, they would all be men now. .

No- this is where you just expose your ignorance regarding the theory of evolution.

Monkeys never become men.

That is like you saying that your grandfather became you.

Monkeys and Humans have a common ancestor far back in our family tree- and monkeys became monkeys and humans became humans.

And then quit evolving? What stopped this inexorable force of DNA mistakes? Here is another problem for you, and whomever suggested trial and error. If an error sends a species on a different track, one more "error" and it is now on a completely different track than the one the original error was directing it to. No species could form. Thesee constant mistakes you think DNA codes make

According to who?

One of your own. Richard Dawkins.
Here is his calculation for just 1 of 4 strands of a hemoglobin molecule forming randomly. It is 1 in 10 to the 190th power.
Now weigh this: that is one with 190 zero's behind it. (A trillion has 12 zeros). And even at those odds it only works if they are intelligently and mechanically isolated and in close proximity. Now calculate the odds of all 4 strands getting lucky to the 190th degree all at once. In primordial sludge. It just didn't happen.

Again- according to whom?

You provide no citation- you mention Richard Dawkins with no link.

And none of this has to do with evolution.

The theory of evolution does not include how life was created. The theory of evolution explains how life on earth is now.

And the theory of evolution is the scientific theory that best matches the evidence we have- and I will point out- you have presented no compelling alternative- other than 'na aaa'

The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins
In that case how do you explain a modern birds mouth? They evolved into jaws and teeth, then devolved in to a beak?

Nothing 'devolves'- organisms 'evolve'

A beak is perfect for birds- much lighter weight than our heavy jaws.

Now- what is your competing and compelling theory that explains life on earth?

Evolution birds evolved with teeth and jaws. Heavy teeth, then backtracked to beak. Apparently.

And some scientists believe that humans are devolving now.

So I guess we are just going to overlook the statistics regarding the probability of your theory.
Let's talk sex. Trial and error cannot apply if the mutated new species is to survive. Here's why. Let's say over millions of years, a single celled amoeba has finally made enough mistakes to become a female lion. You then have to believe that somewhere millions of years ago, some other amoeba started making the exact, same mistakes, yet different mistakes and the result was a male lion. And they met on Match.com, and thank pond scum, those mutated parts seem to fit one another perfectly, and they continued the species.

It's either all or nothing with reproductive parts, If they take time to evolve, the species is done. Cells that are imperfect tend to die rather than thrive.
Same with teeth. For one to be able to chew, not only did the amoeba have to finally create teeth through trial and error, or mutation of the genes it possessed when it had no teeth, but the upper jaw had to know what the bottom jaw was doing to prepare it's upper counterpart. Otherwise there would just be teeth all over the place. To be able to close your mouth or chew is the result of a DNA code, not randomness. So are sexual organs.

As for my belief:

Psalm 139:14
............ I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

You have very much been mis-educated as to how evolution, and even basic biology works. None of what you wrote above in this post has anything to do with modern biological science. Your argument above does not apply.

I would like to write here the way current biological science would explain how two different earlier organisms aren't required to produce two later organisms of different sex, but I just don't have the time to type all of that out here.

If you don't want to believe in evolution or the theories explaining evolution, I would recommend that you at least educate yourself on the theories so that you actually know why you don't want to believe in it.

 

[sealybobo]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

He thinks apes evolved from single cell organisms, overnight...

Like a butterfly?

Actually, why on one hand does he mock the idea a single cell organism turned into an ape overnight but supports the idea God put humans and all the other animals on earth in a week?

Funny thing is when they accept evolution they'll just assume thats how God did it. In other words creationism will become just another allegory in the bible. The bible is full of them. Even Jesus is an allegory

Sometimes I feel lucky that creationists don't "believe" in evolution.

Otherwise it would be impossible to study this field as a science and try to bust and improve certain aspects of it...

We might learn more because doubters keep asking question about points they arent comfortable with.

But sometimes the facts aren't evidence persay they're questions that damand a logical answer. Like, if creation is a myth or best guess by our ancients, and no God poofed us into existence, what came first a baby human or adult? This is why evolution makes sense. There was no first human. Modern humans evolved from a previous species. Before apes we were small hairy rodent type species and before that a reptile and before that a fish and before that a creature that didn't need a mother.

If not then a God must have poofed us here like the holy books say. Out of dust.

Do you think you were made of dust?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Laws don't change. Theories change with every new discovery, like the discovery of fossils that had working compound eyes, long before they should have according to "theory". So they invent a new theory, and decide that maybe, somehow, eye evolution was put on the fast track by randomness and chance. Here is what you believe happens accidentally:

When an eye begins to develop, even in the simplest of living things, the genetic code < (programed instructions) responsible for the eye, programs the body to start growing 2 million nerve endings from the eyes that move through the flesh toward the brain. And another 2 million from the brain moving through the flesh toward the eyes. These optic nerves must then find and match up with it's correct mate for the eye to function. That is design, not a crap shoot. The fact that the eye has the ability to transmit to the brain over 1 and 1/2 million messages simultaneously, at 300 miles an hour is just the icing on the cake. The working eye is complex at it's core. Nothing random or simple about it. It is a work of art.

Psalm 139:14
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

Goddamn, are you full of shit;

The Poor Design of the Human Eye

The vast majority of people will suffer significant loss of visual function in their lifetimes, and for many people, it starts even before puberty. I got glasses after my first eye exam when I was in the second grade. Who knows how long I had actually needed them? My vision isn’t just a little blurry; it’s terrible. My lenses are -4.25 diopters, which means my vision is somewhere around 20/400. Had I been born before, say, 1600, I would probably have gone through life unable to do anything that required me to see further than arm’s length. In pre-history, I would have been worthless as a hunter. Or a gatherer, for that matter.

Compare this to the excellent vision of most birds, especially birds of prey, such as eagles and condors. Their visual acuity at great distances puts even the best human eyes to shame. Many birds can see a broader range of wavelengths than we can also, including ultraviolet light. In fact, migrating birds detect north and south poles with their eyes. It’s not clear if they are consciously aware of this perception, but it seems likely to me that they are, considering this information is conveyed by the same nerves that relay vision. This would mean that some birds can actually see the earth’s magnetic field.

Many birds also have an additional translucent eyelid that allows them to look directly into the sun, at length, without damaging their retinas.

The superiority of the bird eye shows that whatever designed the human eye, be it nature or a deity, is capable of producing eyes that are much better than the human eye. The question of why nature didn’t provide humans with better eyes is easily answered by evolutionary theory: it wasn’t strongly selected for. Alternatively, why an intelligent designer would deny his favorite creatures the excellent vision that he provided lowly birds is quite a mystery.

Then let's capitulate to Darwin's take on the eye:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Here he is trying to make the absurd not so absurd and insuperable:

“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

Insuperable:
adjective
adjective: insuperable
(of a difficulty or obstacle) impossible to overcome. insurmountable.

In his imagining random sight is absurd. Mine too.
For the design to work 2 million nerve endings need to know that their job is to travel through matter and find their exact mate. That is not random. That is programed code. You just happen to believe that it randomly occurred. I do not.

Darwinian evolutionary theories are obsolete. The theories of evolution have "evolved" with new information and discoveries. What Darwin thought of the evolution of eyes no longer applies. Modern biology has already addressed such issues in depth.

 

[sealybobo]

Laws don't change. Theories change with every new discovery, like the discovery of fossils that had working compound eyes, long before they should have according to "theory". So they invent a new theory, and decide that maybe, somehow, eye evolution was put on the fast track by randomness and chance. Here is what you believe happens accidentally:

When an eye begins to develop, even in the simplest of living things, the genetic code < (programed instructions) responsible for the eye, programs the body to start growing 2 million nerve endings from the eyes that move through the flesh toward the brain. And another 2 million from the brain moving through the flesh toward the eyes. These optic nerves must then find and match up with it's correct mate for the eye to function. That is design, not a crap shoot. The fact that the eye has the ability to transmit to the brain over 1 and 1/2 million messages simultaneously, at 300 miles an hour is just the icing on the cake. The working eye is complex at it's core. Nothing random or simple about it. It is a work of art.

Psalm 139:14
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.

Isn't it all, science the universe the human body the seemingly perfect world that all seems to be made just for us amazing? Lucky us seriously.

But remember before your God were many other gods. We outgrew those and hopefully we will shed our existing primitive cults that keep the masses under control. It's a big business. Huge.

Anyways, we used to worship the sun. We thanked it for all that it did for us and prayed at night for its return. We were sheep for bear wolves tigers lions panthers cheetah hyenas in the dark for millions of years

 

[alpine]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

He thinks apes evolved from single cell organisms, overnight...

Like a butterfly?

Actually, why on one hand does he mock the idea a single cell organism turned into an ape overnight but supports the idea God put humans and all the other animals on earth in a week?

Funny thing is when they accept evolution they'll just assume thats how God did it. In other words creationism will become just another allegory in the bible. The bible is full of them. Even Jesus is an allegory

Sometimes I feel lucky that creationists don't "believe" in evolution.

Otherwise it would be impossible to study this field as a science and try to bust and improve certain aspects of it...

We might learn more because doubters keep asking question about points they arent comfortable with.

But sometimes the facts aren't evidence persay they're questions that damand a logical answer. Like, if creation is a myth or best guess by our ancients, and no God poofed us into existence, what came first a baby human or adult? This is why evolution makes sense. There was no first human. Modern humans evolved from a previous species. Before apes we were small hairy rodent type species and before that a reptile and before that a fish and before that a creature that didn't need a mother.

If not then a God must have poofed us here like the holy books say. Out of dust.

Do you think you were made of dust?

Well, yes, star dust

Shit, am I christian now?

 

[sealybobo]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

The top 10 signs that you don’t understand evolution at all

 

[sealybobo]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

What do most people who deny evolution have in common?

1. They go to church
2. They aren't that smart.

February 2009 Gallup Poll reported only 39 percent of Americans believed in the theory of evolution. (Today it’s 50% btw). While a quarter said they did not believe in the theory, and another 36% said they didn't have an opinion either way. The same poll correlated belief in evolution with educational level: 21 percent of people with a high school education or less believed in evolution. That number rose to 41 percent for people with some college attendance, 53 percent for college graduates, and 74 percent for people with a postgraduate education. Clearly, the level of education has an impact on how people feel about evolution.

Another variable investigated by the same poll was how belief in evolution correlates with church attendance. Of those who believe in evolution, 24 percent go to church weekly, 30 percent go nearly weekly/monthly, and 55 percent seldom or never go.

Not surprisingly, and rather unfortunately, religious belief interferes with people's understanding of what the theory of evolution says.

 

[Syriusly]

Fact
Creatures have evolved

Fact
Creatures adapt to their environment. They do not morph into other creatures. Monkeys continue to be monkeys. Man continues to be man.

Populations of species continue to adapt to their ever-changing environment until those populations are unrecognizable as the same species. There is no arbitrary line at which adaptation, or evolution, stops.

Different populations of species of monkeys continue to adapt until they are no longer be categorizable as the same species of monkeys. Eventually so much time passes that we would not, if we were still around to observe the populations, recognize the species of monkeys as monkeys at all but as an entirely new species, even a new genus. After hundreds of millions or billions of years, perhaps even a new phylum.

If that were the case, there would be no more monkeys, they would all be men now. .

No- this is where you just expose your ignorance regarding the theory of evolution.

Monkeys never become men.

That is like you saying that your grandfather became you.

Monkeys and Humans have a common ancestor far back in our family tree- and monkeys became monkeys and humans became humans.

And then quit evolving? What stopped this inexorable force of DNA mistakes? E]

Who quite evolving?

Again- you really don't have a clue what the theory of evolution says- or you just lie about it- I really don't know which it is.

Every organism continues to evolve, but that doesn't mean that organisms will necessarily evolve into new and different species.

The theory of evolution best fits the scientific facts we know about life on earth.

What is your competing and more compelling theory that explains life on earth?