One Example Against Evolution!

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for maheo30
maheo30

5102

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 maheo30
Member since 2006 • 5102 Posts
The Amazing Jewel Beetle by Frank Sherwin, M.A.*

Recently scientists made a startling discovery in the world of insects. It involved a common beetle called the jewel beetle which is designed with the uncanny ability to detect flames of a forest fire perhaps 80 kilometers (approximately 50 miles) away.1 Not only that, but it can also hear the cracking of the wood and even sense combustion products in very small amounts using supersensitive receptors.

The jewel beetle (genus Melanophila) was first discovered and superficially described in 1960 by Canadian entomologist William George Evans. Dr. Evans insisted that the tiny pits of this curious beetle contained infrared receptors. The more research entomologists have conducted on this little creature the more amazed they become. For example, the black fire beetle (as it is called in Canada), like many animals in creation, requires special conditions in which to breed. This insect needs burnt wood from a blazing forest fire! But how does it find such conditions? It has been designed with special sensors -- sensilla -- in tiny pits on its underside that can actually pick up infrared (IR) radiation from the flames of a fire. This capability to detect infrared radiation (either from a fire, or heat produced by an animal) is quite amazing and has no evolutionary mechanism of development. As is known, this beetle (there are several species on several continents) and some snakes such as the pit viper are the only creatures with this ability.

Not surprisingly, with this capacity, jewel beetles are the first creatures to move into such an inhospitable environment. Because they are the first arrivals, there are no jewel beetle predators to worry about and they can proliferate in large numbers. The female flies to the still smoldering bark of a tree to lay her eggs. The young hatch and are safe inside the dead wood. The usual defense mechanism of a living tree to such insect predation (i.e., resin secretion and toxic chemicals -- see Origins Issues: http://www.icr.org/article/2461) is, of course, halted. She finds these trees with the incredible infrared detector/feelers God has given her. Secular scientists state these feelers are just "modified mechano-sensors," but the creation scientist would say these are tools created for the job.

Jewel beetle research has been long and detailed, involving not just entomologists, but also chemical ecologists, physiologists, and a physicist. Scientists at the University of Bonn (Germany) are currently trying to mimic the features of the infrared feelers to see if they can cheaply manufacture thousands of these sensing devices. If they can, the devices can be mounted around forests, ready to register and alert foresters of a fire. The military is also interested in such capabilities. But as is often the case with man's attempts to mimic God's creative work, the first prototype sensor is large, cumbersome, and not nearly as accurate as the tiny jewel beetle.

Let's remember that random genetic mistakes, called mutations, cannot make all of the special apparatus described above. This is not the result of evolution, but the fingerprint of the Master Designer. In fact, the apostle Paul said that such highly sensitive infrared sensors studied today are evidence of God's creation. This is indeed "clearly seen" (Romans 1:20).

Avatar image for darklord888
darklord888

8382

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 darklord888
Member since 2004 • 8382 Posts

Cool but there is like...4 million creatures that are for evolution. ;)

Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts
The Watchmaker argument is really absurd. If God wanted to leave indelible evidence of His existence for mankind, why doesn't He just sign His name across the sky? It does a great disservice to faith to demand proof and to science to try to twist it to meet the demands of faith.
Avatar image for qetuo6
qetuo6

2732

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 qetuo6
Member since 2006 • 2732 Posts
So God would rather make the perfect beetle then help us humans out?
Avatar image for nickmag
nickmag

6710

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 nickmag
Member since 2006 • 6710 Posts
Quite a biased extract you have there, even with the "Secular scientists state these feelers are just "modified mechano-sensors"" bit.
Avatar image for maheo30
maheo30

5102

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 maheo30
Member since 2006 • 5102 Posts
Evolution can't explain the SPECIFIC design. Mutations? Is that the best evolution can do? Sorry, that's religion not science.
Avatar image for xboxdudeman800
xboxdudeman800

3880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#7 xboxdudeman800
Member since 2005 • 3880 Posts
Chance and randomness is part of evolution
Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts
Evolution can't explain the SPECIFIC design. Mutations? Is that the best evolution can do? Sorry, that's religion not science.
maheo30
Mutations have been observed and natural selection doesn't require too much faith. How is empirical observation not science?
Avatar image for jim_shorts
jim_shorts

7320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#9 jim_shorts
Member since 2006 • 7320 Posts
So God would rather make the perfect beetle then help us humans out?qetuo6
God did plenty for humans.  Much, much more than we deserve.
Avatar image for CptJSparrow
CptJSparrow

10898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 CptJSparrow
Member since 2007 • 10898 Posts
Quite obviously their eye development was based on infrared whereas ours is on 'visible light.' Quite clearly anyone can see the advantage of such. Natural selection wins once again.
Avatar image for hip-hop-cola
hip-hop-cola

558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#11 hip-hop-cola
Member since 2007 • 558 Posts

Evolution can't explain the SPECIFIC design. Mutations? Is that the best evolution can do? Sorry, that's religion not science.
maheo30

lol, do u even know how mutation works?....since this beetle is the ONLY reason u can put up against the evolution theory and there are MILLIONS of creatures on the earth that support it.... couldn't there be the chance that this 1 beetle got lucky and was perfect.

why dont i believe in god? because there is no proof at all where as science gives me plenty...

Avatar image for queenfan66
queenfan66

2737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#12 queenfan66
Member since 2006 • 2737 Posts

where do beetles come from in the evolution?

Avatar image for Atrus
Atrus

10422

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 Atrus
Member since 2002 • 10422 Posts

How about Evolution by Natural Selection. That the populace of Jewel Beetles that manages to survive the best has been the ones better able to detect these predator free zones the quickest, to the point where they've attuned themselves to IR sensory. 

 

Avatar image for CptJSparrow
CptJSparrow

10898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 CptJSparrow
Member since 2007 • 10898 Posts
[QUOTE="qetuo6"]So God would rather make the perfect beetle then help us humans out?jim_shorts
God did plenty for humans. Much, much more than we deserve.

He could've given us teeth that fit our jaws. Goddamn wisdom teeth.
Avatar image for maheo30
maheo30

5102

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 maheo30
Member since 2006 • 5102 Posts
Chance and randomness can't explain the world we have and all the creatures we have in it like the Jewel Beetle. That is religion not science. Which is what evolution is.
Avatar image for jim_shorts
jim_shorts

7320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#16 jim_shorts
Member since 2006 • 7320 Posts

How about Evolution by Natural Selection. That the populace of Jewel Beetles that manages to survive the best has been the ones better able to detect these predator free zones the quickest, to the point where they've attuned themselves to IR sensory. 

 

Atrus
The only problem is that natural selection involves a loss of information, not a gain of it.
Avatar image for dhyce
dhyce

5609

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 dhyce
Member since 2003 • 5609 Posts

Evolution can't explain the SPECIFIC design. Mutations? Is that the best evolution can do? Sorry, that's religion not science.
maheo30

You say "is that the best evolution can do?" like it's some childish competition. When in reality it is simply the best method humans have to explain how things happened by actually studying them.

When are people going to stop with this propaganda? Honestly, it's getting so old. A beetle is not going to stop scientists from studying the process of evolution and figuring out this insect. It simply has adapted to a certain condition, like countless other creatures.

Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts
Chance and randomness can't explain the world we have and all the creatures we have in it like the Jewel Beetle. That is religion not science. Which is what evolution is.
maheo30
Repeating that does not make it true. You have provided an example that seems compelling to you and only you. Do you have any quantitative arguments against evolution other than proclaiming it "not science"?
Avatar image for Zagrius
Zagrius

3820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#19 Zagrius
Member since 2002 • 3820 Posts

A biased pro-creationism site says that something couldn't have evolved from something else? What a surprise. Hey, did you know that ears are quite amazing and have no evolutionary mechanism of development? It's on the internet (as of now) so it must be true!

Heck, they already claim that our eyes are too perfect to have been evolved. Odd how my perfectly designed eyes require glasses to function properly.

Avatar image for cory4513
cory4513

1318

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 cory4513
Member since 2006 • 1318 Posts

Chance and randomness can't explain the world we have and all the creatures we have in it like the Jewel Beetle. That is religion not science. Which is what evolution is.
maheo30

Religion:

a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience
Avatar image for Def_Jef88
Def_Jef88

17441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#21 Def_Jef88
Member since 2006 • 17441 Posts

My god, are there still people who seriously doubt evolution?

What do schools teach anymore? ...

Avatar image for cory4513
cory4513

1318

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 cory4513
Member since 2006 • 1318 Posts
[QUOTE="Atrus"]

How about Evolution by Natural Selection. That the populace of Jewel Beetles that manages to survive the best has been the ones better able to detect these predator free zones the quickest, to the point where they've attuned themselves to IR sensory.

 

jim_shorts

The only problem is that natural selection involves a loss of information, not a gain of it.

no no it dosent 

Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts
[QUOTE="Atrus"]

How about Evolution by Natural Selection. That the populace of Jewel Beetles that manages to survive the best has been the ones better able to detect these predator free zones the quickest, to the point where they've attuned themselves to IR sensory. 

 

jim_shorts
The only problem is that natural selection involves a loss of information, not a gain of it.

Are you referring to less suited organisms being selected against in the encironment? If so, I guess that could be considered a loss of information, but mutation introduces new variants and represents a crucial mechanism in evolution.
Avatar image for Sajo7
Sajo7

14049

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#24 Sajo7
Member since 2005 • 14049 Posts

My god, are there still people who seriously doubt evolution?

What do schools teach anymore? ...

Def_Jef88

They teach it, but evangelicals tend to be much more obnoxious abouth the whole thing.

Avatar image for Def_Jef88
Def_Jef88

17441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 Def_Jef88
Member since 2006 • 17441 Posts

where do beetles come from in the evolution?

queenfan66
older beetles?.... :?
Avatar image for CptJSparrow
CptJSparrow

10898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 CptJSparrow
Member since 2007 • 10898 Posts

My god, are there still people who seriously doubt evolution?

What do schools teach anymore? ...

Def_Jef88
People don't pay attention in school. Nothing new.
Avatar image for darklord888
darklord888

8382

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#27 darklord888
Member since 2004 • 8382 Posts

I thought I'd post just one of the many creatures that prove evolution.

The texas cave salamander lives in pitch black caves in water with little oxygen so after thousands of years it lost its eyes, it's skin turned white and its gills went on the outside so it can beathe well with such low oxygen. Now if evolution wasn't real why the hell would it have no eyes?

Avatar image for jim_shorts
jim_shorts

7320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#28 jim_shorts
Member since 2006 • 7320 Posts
[QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

How about Evolution by Natural Selection. That the populace of Jewel Beetles that manages to survive the best has been the ones better able to detect these predator free zones the quickest, to the point where they've attuned themselves to IR sensory. 

 

xaos
The only problem is that natural selection involves a loss of information, not a gain of it.

Are you referring to less suited organisms being selected against in the encironment? If so, I guess that could be considered a loss of information, but mutation introduces new variants and represents a crucial mechanism in evolution.

I don't see how natural selection and mutations are related.  Enlighten me.
Avatar image for Mumbles527
Mumbles527

7706

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 Mumbles527
Member since 2004 • 7706 Posts
Yet another case of "If science can't yet exactly explain it to the point where a 10 year old would understand it, it must have been the work of God." And yet more people who blindly believe silly stories because they were told to. I've always loved how science is backed up by evidence and facts, and religion is back up by the small lack of science and nothing else. No legitimate proof, just blind faith and yet the religious people claim that those who believe in science are the ignorant ones.
Avatar image for maheo30
maheo30

5102

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 maheo30
Member since 2006 • 5102 Posts
Give me an example of macro evolution. Obviously I'm a moron. So what proof is there? I have literally thousands of proofs for creationism.(Radio Halos, Jabal Al-Lawz, Earth's Magnetic Field, Helium content, Expansion of space fabric...ect.)How about cells? A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17
Avatar image for jim_shorts
jim_shorts

7320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#31 jim_shorts
Member since 2006 • 7320 Posts

I thought I'd post just one of the many creatures that prove evolution.

The texas cave salamander lives in pitch black caves in water with little oxygen so after thousands of years it lost its eyes, it's skin turned white and its gills went on the outside so it can beathe well with such low oxygen. Now if evolution wasn't real why the hell would it have no eyes?

darklord888
God knew it wouldn't need eyes, so he made it without any eyes.  It's not that hard.
Avatar image for Def_Jef88
Def_Jef88

17441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#32 Def_Jef88
Member since 2006 • 17441 Posts
[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

How about Evolution by Natural Selection. That the populace of Jewel Beetles that manages to survive the best has been the ones better able to detect these predator free zones the quickest, to the point where they've attuned themselves to IR sensory.

 

jim_shorts
The only problem is that natural selection involves a loss of information, not a gain of it.

Are you referring to less suited organisms being selected against in the encironment? If so, I guess that could be considered a loss of information, but mutation introduces new variants and represents a crucial mechanism in evolution.

I don't see how natural selection and mutations are related. Enlighten me.

The animals with the good mutations have a better chance of living long enough to breed, therfore raising the gene ratio of that good gene against the bad gene since most carriers of the bad genes die....
Avatar image for darklord888
darklord888

8382

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#33 darklord888
Member since 2004 • 8382 Posts

My god, are there still people who seriously doubt evolution?

What do schools teach anymore? ...

Def_Jef88


I read that in the doco called planet earth the american version cut out all evolution references in the narration. Not sure if it's true but its stupid if it is.
Avatar image for Atrus
Atrus

10422

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 Atrus
Member since 2002 • 10422 Posts

The only problem is that natural selection involves a loss of information, not a gain of it.jim_shorts

What? Natural selection reinforces traits to the point where entirely new characteristics may be developed to emphasize the desired outcome. The whole "no new information" argument was defeated when bacteria engaged in a frame shift mutation (the type Creationist cite as impossible) to eat Nylon, a man-made substance not found naturally.

Natural selection is able to explain the design of about every species I know of, and doesn't stutter as much as Creationists whose only answer is "God did it!". CptJSparrow just reminded me of a site which lists the flaws in the argument from good design.

If your case is that creatures are so efficiently designed to have needed a designer then I suggest you look at the following:

http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm


This 'God' as proposed by the Creationists seems like quite the incompetent, particularly with respect to Humans it's supposedly favoured creation.

Avatar image for maheo30
maheo30

5102

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 maheo30
Member since 2006 • 5102 Posts
You want to prove evolution? You flip a coin and get it to land on heads 150 times in a row and I'll believe in evolution. Until then I'll stick with the more logical approach. Jesus Christ!
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180150 Posts

Chance and randomness is part of evolutionxboxdudeman800

No, no,no.....evolution is a step forward...there should be no chance and randomness involved. It occurs for a reason.

Avatar image for Def_Jef88
Def_Jef88

17441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#37 Def_Jef88
Member since 2006 • 17441 Posts
Give me an example of macro evolution. Obviously I'm a moron. So what proof is there? I have literally thousands of proofs for creationism.(Radio Halos, Jabal Al-Lawz, Earth's Magnetic Field, Helium content, Expansion of space fabric...ect.)How about cells? A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17 maheo30
Galapagos turtles.  At one point they all belonged to the same species but some got seperated on different islands (galapagos turtles cant swim) and over timee they accumulated so many adaptions that they lost the ability to interbreed, thus making them different species.
Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts
[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

How about Evolution by Natural Selection. That the populace of Jewel Beetles that manages to survive the best has been the ones better able to detect these predator free zones the quickest, to the point where they've attuned themselves to IR sensory. 

 

jim_shorts
The only problem is that natural selection involves a loss of information, not a gain of it.

Are you referring to less suited organisms being selected against in the encironment? If so, I guess that could be considered a loss of information, but mutation introduces new variants and represents a crucial mechanism in evolution.

I don't see how natural selection and mutations are related.  Enlighten me.

As Jef said, mutation is the mechanism by which new traits are introduced into a species, and, over the course of deep time, by which speciation occurs. Without it, barring environmental changes, natural selection would be a one-time event.
Avatar image for jim_shorts
jim_shorts

7320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#39 jim_shorts
Member since 2006 • 7320 Posts
The animals with the good mutations have a better chance of living long enough to breed, therfore raising the gene ratio of that good gene against the bad gene since most carriers of the bad genes die....Def_Jef88
I heard it was just the characteristics of the animal that allowed it to survive.  I also thought that macroevolution(sp) hadn't been proven yet.
Avatar image for Def_Jef88
Def_Jef88

17441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#40 Def_Jef88
Member since 2006 • 17441 Posts

[QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"]Chance and randomness is part of evolutionLJS9502_basic

No, no,no.....evolution is a step forward...there should be no chance and randomness involved. It occurs for a reason.

True, but mutations play a part in evolution, and they are random.
Avatar image for CptJSparrow
CptJSparrow

10898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 CptJSparrow
Member since 2007 • 10898 Posts
You want to prove evolution? You flip a coin and get it to land on heads 150 times in a row and I'll believe in evolution. Until then I'll stick with the more logical approach. Jesus Christ!
maheo30
That makes no sense at all.:| So then, I'll reverse it. You want to prove Jesus? You pray for it and then flip a coin and get it to land on heads 150 times in a row and I'll believe in Jesus. Until then I'll stick with the only rational approach.
Avatar image for darklord888
darklord888

8382

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#42 darklord888
Member since 2004 • 8382 Posts
[QUOTE="darklord888"]

I thought I'd post just one of the many creatures that prove evolution.

The texas cave salamander lives in pitch black caves in water with little oxygen so after thousands of years it lost its eyes, it's skin turned white and its gills went on the outside so it can beathe well with such low oxygen. Now if evolution wasn't real why the hell would it have no eyes?

jim_shorts
God knew it wouldn't need eyes, so he made it without any eyes.  It's not that hard.



Oooh ok so it just has a spot for eyes there for the fun of it?

Ok explain these. Wisdom teeth, appendix, tonsils, body hair and all the other (now)unless parts on a human?
Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts

[QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"]Chance and randomness is part of evolutionLJS9502_basic

No, no,no.....evolution is a step forward...there should be no chance and randomness involved. It occurs for a reason.

There is no real notion of progress in evolutionary theory, just increased suitability to an environment
Avatar image for qetuo6
qetuo6

2732

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 qetuo6
Member since 2006 • 2732 Posts
I'm starting to believe that he is just trolling. Just a hunch.
Avatar image for Mumbles527
Mumbles527

7706

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 Mumbles527
Member since 2004 • 7706 Posts
Give me an example of macro evolution. Obviously I'm a moron. So what proof is there? I have literally thousands of proofs for creationism.(Radio Halos, Jabal Al-Lawz, Earth's Magnetic Field, Helium content, Expansion of space fabric...ect.)How about cells? A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17 maheo30
The chance of being in a plane crash is 1 in 11 million, is God responsible for every plane crash as well? You act as though just because the odds against it are big, its impossible. And trust me, being a poker player, I know that even the things with the smallest possible chances will still happen occasionally.
Avatar image for cory4513
cory4513

1318

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 cory4513
Member since 2006 • 1318 Posts

You want to prove evolution? You flip a coin and get it to land on heads 150 times in a row and I'll believe in evolution. Until then I'll stick with the more logical approach. Jesus Christ!
maheo30

How in hell is jesus more logical? 

Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts
You want to prove evolution? You flip a coin and get it to land on heads 150 times in a row and I'll believe in evolution. Until then I'll stick with the more logical approach. Jesus Christ!
maheo30
Given hundreds of millions of years, I could do so many, many times...
Avatar image for jim_shorts
jim_shorts

7320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#48 jim_shorts
Member since 2006 • 7320 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"]Chance and randomness is part of evolutionDef_Jef88

No, no,no.....evolution is a step forward...there should be no chance and randomness involved. It occurs for a reason.

True, but mutations play a part in evolution, and they are random.

If they are random they have just as good a chance of killing the animal. 
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180150 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"]Chance and randomness is part of evolutionDef_Jef88

No, no,no.....evolution is a step forward...there should be no chance and randomness involved. It occurs for a reason.

True, but mutations play a part in evolution, and they are random.

Mutations are not quite the same. 

Avatar image for Def_Jef88
Def_Jef88

17441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#50 Def_Jef88
Member since 2006 • 17441 Posts

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"] The animals with the good mutations have a better chance of living long enough to breed, therfore raising the gene ratio of that good gene against the bad gene since most carriers of the bad genes die....jim_shorts
I heard it was just the characteristics of the animal that allowed it to survive. I also thought that macroevolution(sp) hadn't been proven yet.

Evolution is the change in a gene ration in a species gene pool. But if two geographically seperated animals of the same species accumulate enough of these differences they become different species, unable to inter-breed.  Thats macro-evolution.

Its really not as big a deal as most religous people make it out to be.  Its perfectly possible for there to be a god and evolutionÂ