One Example Against Evolution!

Once again Than you gave me micro not macro. And evolution can't explain all the interdependent things we see on earth. Like the various eco-systems that would need to evolve together or they would die out. All the evidence? It is still a turtle def. Come to grips with that. It won't turn into a grouper or sea snake. It is still going to give birth to a turtle. Evolution needs a species to evolve from one species into another completely different species. That is still a turtle and when you show the picture to a bunch a 10 year old what are they going to say? It is a turtle. Evolution hasn't shown a horse evolving into a duck. Evidence? LOL!
maheo30

If you're going to try to destroy evolution, please try to be logical. A turtle can't evolve into a sea snake and a horse can't evolve into a duck because they're in totally (c)(l)(a)(s)(s)es of organisms! A whale-thing evolved into a whale because it's prey slowly adapted into living in the water, where the whale-thing couldn't get it. So the whale-thing started to go into the water for food. The one that lasted the longest underwater ate the most and survived better because of it. Whale-thing passed this on, and it continued until we got the whale.

[QUOTE="maheo30"]Evolution can't explain the SPECIFIC design. Mutations? Is that the best evolution can do? Sorry, that's religion not science.
hip-hop-cola

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...

Seriously, all the eveidence is in place to prove evolution. Read my latest blog post for more of opion on this issue.

Why in the holy bleeding heck is this guy using ridiculous examples saying it disproves evolution? Why would a horse turn into a duck? That has nothing to do with evolution... or even basic common sense.

Creatures adapt and become more appropriate forms of themselves, slowly branching from other creatures, which have since evolved into entirely different creatures themselves. All of this taking an extremely long period of time. Changes being unnoticeable in a human lifetime, or ten for that matter. These processes happen extremely slowly.

Once again Than you gave me micro not macro. maheo30

And evolution can't explain all the interdependent things we see on earth. Like the various eco-systems that would need to evolve together or they would die out. All the evidence?maheo30

It is still a turtle def. Come to grips with that. It won't turn into a grouper or sea snake. It is still going to give birth to a turtle. Evolution needs a species to evolve from one species into another completely different species. That is still a turtle and when you show the picture to a bunch a 10 year old what are they going to say? It is a turtle. Evolution hasn't shown a horse evolving into a duck. Evidence? LOL! maheo30

Species do not just change from one to another in one generation, I don't know where you got the idea that that is how evolution works. Evolution is a very slow process in which the genes that make a species more likely to survive within a particular environment, are more likely to survive and grow within a population. Over time many of these changes in the genetics of a species, (the Superior traits surviving) allow enough change for a species to be distinguished from it's ancestors.

Evolution isn't a linear process of one currently existing species changing into another currently existing species. Where did you get the idea that that is how evolution works?

   I don't know why most of you are bothering.  This guy's ignorance is so apparent it's laughable, not to say he doesn't have an arguement, but when he asks why a turtle doesn't change into a shark or vice versa, that is proof(errr I mean religion) that he has no concept of what he is trying to argue against.Rekunta

But it's funny and my Chinese food has yet to arrive.

Once again Than you gave me micro not macro. And evolution can't explain all the interdependent things we see on earth. Like the various eco-systems that would need to evolve together or they would die out. All the evidence? It is still a turtle def. Come to grips with that. It won't turn into a grouper or sea snake. It is still going to give birth to a turtle. Evolution needs a species to evolve from one species into another completely different species. That is still a turtle and when you show the picture to a bunch a 10 year old what are they going to say? It is a turtle. Evolution hasn't shown a horse evolving into a duck. Evidence? LOL!
maheo30

I am actually studying evolutionary biology in school right now. I certainly would not cl@ssify myself as an expert since I have just started into my basic core cl@sses, however I can provide you with a substantial amount of evidence that supports evolutionary theory.

However, I'm not going to waste my time if you are going to approach it with the attitude that you are right and nothing anybody else says is going to change your mind.

[QUOTE="maheo30"]Once again Than you gave me micro not macro. And evolution can't explain all the interdependent things we see on earth. Like the various eco-systems that would need to evolve together or they would die out. All the evidence? It is still a turtle def. Come to grips with that. It won't turn into a grouper or sea snake. It is still going to give birth to a turtle. Evolution needs a species to evolve from one species into another completely different species. That is still a turtle and when you show the picture to a bunch a 10 year old what are they going to say? It is a turtle. Evolution hasn't shown a horse evolving into a duck. Evidence? LOL!
Decessus

I am actually studying evolutionary biology in school right now. I certainly would not cl@ssify myself as an expert since I have just started into my basic core cl@sses, however I can provide you with a substantial amount of evidence that supports evolutionary theory.

However, I'm not going to waste my time if you are going to approach it with the attitude that you are right and nothing anybody else says is going to change your mind.

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

[QUOTE="maheo30"]Once again Than you gave me micro not macro. And evolution can't explain all the interdependent things we see on earth. Like the various eco-systems that would need to evolve together or they would die out. All the evidence? It is still a turtle def. Come to grips with that. It won't turn into a grouper or sea snake. It is still going to give birth to a turtle. Evolution needs a species to evolve from one species into another completely different species. That is still a turtle and when you show the picture to a bunch a 10 year old what are they going to say? It is a turtle. Evolution hasn't shown a horse evolving into a duck. Evidence? LOL!
CptJSparrow

I am actually studying evolutionary biology in school right now. I certainly would not cl@ssify myself as an expert since I have just started into my basic core cl@sses, however I can provide you with a substantial amount of evidence that supports evolutionary theory.

However, I'm not going to waste my time if you are going to approach it with the attitude that you are right and nothing anybody else says is going to change your mind.

Well, there are more than one, but so far I have enjoyed the ones I have taken.

Once again Than you gave me micro not macro. And evolution can't explain all the interdependent things we see on earth. Like the various eco-systems that would need to evolve together or they would die out. All the evidence? It is still a turtle def. Come to grips with that. It won't turn into a grouper or sea snake. It is still going to give birth to a turtle. Evolution needs a species to evolve from one species into another completely different species. That is still a turtle and when you show the picture to a bunch a 10 year old what are they going to say? It is a turtle. Evolution hasn't shown a horse evolving into a duck. Evidence? LOL!
maheo30

[QUOTE="maheo30"]Once again Than you gave me micro not macro. And evolution can't explain all the interdependent things we see on earth. Like the various eco-systems that would need to evolve together or they would die out. All the evidence? It is still a turtle def. Come to grips with that. It won't turn into a grouper or sea snake. It is still going to give birth to a turtle. Evolution needs a species to evolve from one species into another completely different species. That is still a turtle and when you show the picture to a bunch a 10 year old what are they going to say? It is a turtle. Evolution hasn't shown a horse evolving into a duck. Evidence? LOL!
espoac

An example of a point mutation:

ATGCGAGCTACG gets copied as ATGCGAGCTACA

[QUOTE="qetuo6"]So God would rather make the perfect beetle then help us humans out?jim_shorts

That's true....

1.) This isn't a strong argument.

2.) He knows nothing about evolution.

hip said, "the others i havnt heard of dont know. a living cell dint just appear.....the earth is VERY old giving lots of time for that to happen." That proves my point again. It took lots of time. That's not science but faith. "I believe it happened over lots of time." You don't know making it faith or religion. Also, look at what def wrote. He says, "that why evloution is such a slow process." Yeah, taking billions of years. Once again my point is proven that is faith not science. You believe it took that long. That is religion. You don't know it took that long. maheo30

 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!

Obviously I'm a moron.  maheo30

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.xaos

in the words of futurama.."if you do too much people will become dependant on you,if you do too little people will loose faith in you. but if you do something just right people wont even think you did anything at all

[QUOTE="xaos"]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.lovemenow

in the words of futurama.."if you do too much people will become dependant on you,if you do too little people will loose faith in you. but if you do something just right people wont even think you did anything at all

 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!

miracleriver

(the site claims to be a reply to evolution)

http://www.harunyahya.com/definitivereply23.php 

I know less than the TC on this subject, so I'm not about to jump in on the flame-wagon that is this discussion.

However, I would like to say something.

Evolution is a theory. It is a scientific theory because it has empirical evidence supporting it, I know. But what a theory is is an idea that is supported by known facts, until it can be proven by these known facts and thus become a known fact itself. Evolution is not a known fact. It is a theory. If it was absolutely true, like so many are saying, then it would not be reffered to as the evolution theory but scientists. Gravity is the same. As is plate tectonics. I'm not sayingthey are completely wrong, because they do have evidence, but I'm not just shouting that they are right, either. 

There.

Great.  One extremely arguable counter-example among a sea of superb evidence.

I have one huge problem with this post.  The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that all but the most bias skeptic would refute its validity -- which is perfectly fine if you do so on a relative epistomological ground.  You may not believe evolution has enough evidence, or we can not trust how we arrived at such evidence; both of these beliefs are fine.

What pisses me off is that people who are so strict in their expectations for evidence, at the same time, believe in superstitious war Gods that magically created man, the world, and universe in a minute fraction of time.  The evidence for this superstitious and ridiculous belief system is so minute that it is almost painful.  I do not see how someone who is an opponent of evolution could denounce evolution, and at the same time, claim that there exists some sort of magical omnipotent and omnibenevolant entity.

They could, but their beliefs would amount to little more than bias superstition crafted by Biblical dogma.

If it was absolutely true, like so many are saying, then it would not be reffered to as the evolution theory but scientists.

Silver_Dragon17

I know less than the TC on this subject, so I'm not about to jump in on the flame-wagon that is this discussion.

However, I would like to say something.

Evolution is a theory. It is a scientific theory because it has empirical evidence supporting it, I know. But what a theory is is an idea that is supported by known facts, until it can be proven by these known facts and thus become a known fact itself. Evolution is not a known fact. It is a theory. If it was absolutely true, like so many are saying, then it would not be reffered to as the evolution theory but scientists. Gravity is the same. As is plate tectonics. I'm not sayingthey are completely wrong, because they do have evidence, but I'm not just shouting that they are right, either. 

There.

Silver_Dragon17

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.xaos

someone did their homework, and I agree with themLights-Shadow

 If your meaning of homework is copying and pasting bullcrap from creationist sites than my mom does homework everyday

I know less than the TC on this subject, so I'm not about to jump in on the flame-wagon that is this discussion.

However, I would like to say something.

Evolution is a theory. It is a scientific theory because it has empirical evidence supporting it, I know. But what a theory is is an idea that is supported by known facts, until it can be proven by these known facts and thus become a known fact itself. Evolution is not a known fact. It is a theory. If it was absolutely true, like so many are saying, then it would not be reffered to as the evolution theory but scientists. Gravity is the same. As is plate tectonics. I'm not sayingthey are completely wrong, because they do have evidence, but I'm not just shouting that they are right, either.

There.

Silver_Dragon17

The theory is about how evolution works not that evolution exists, and we're already past the point where we are considering it's validity. It's true. Now it's all about not letting the education system rot to a level where people think it's "only a theory" or that "it's silly".

Evolution and biology are linked and nothing makes sense in biology except in light of evolution.

I honestly pity the future astrophysicists and neuroscientists. They'll find some worldview changing breakthrough and they'll spend the next 150 years trying to get people to wrap their heads around it.

Great. One extremely arguable counter-example among a sea of superb evidence.

I have one huge problem with this post. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that all but the most bias skeptic would refute its validity -- which is perfectly fine if you do so on a relative epistomological ground. You may not believe evolution has enough evidence, or we can not trust how we arrived at such evidence; both of these beliefs are fine.

What pisses me off is that people who are so strict in their expectations for evidence, at the same time, believe in superstitious war Gods that magically created man, the world, and universe in a minute fraction of time. The evidence for this superstitious and ridiculous belief system is so minute that it is almost painful. I do not see how someone who is an opponent of evolution could denounce evolution, and at the same time, claim that there exists some sort of magical omnipotent and omnibenevolant entity.

They could, but their beliefs would amount to little more than bias superstition crafted by Biblical dogma.

FoamingPanda

That annoys me as well. And everytime i say that to my parents/family(im like the only Atheist in my family), they get all mad and say "How can you believe that we came from monkeys!!". I just say "How can you believe we were made from dirt and not from monkeys?". That gets em every time. 

P.S. im not entirely sure that the bible says that we were made from dirt, but we didnt exactly evolve from monkeys i believe. 

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

I know less than the TC on this subject, so I'm not about to jump in on the flame-wagon that is this discussion.

However, I would like to say something.

Evolution is a theory. It is a scientific theory because it has empirical evidence supporting it, I know. But what a theory is is an idea that is supported by known facts, until it can be proven by these known facts and thus become a known fact itself. Evolution is not a known fact. It is a theory. If it was absolutely true, like so many are saying, then it would not be reffered to as the evolution theory but scientists. Gravity is the same. As is plate tectonics. I'm not sayingthey are completely wrong, because they do have evidence, but I'm not just shouting that they are right, either.

There.

EboyLOL

Bad very bad argument !! Gravity is still a theory because scientists doesnt know everything about gravity ! Man your ignorance smells bad. 

Sweet! God wins yet again :)MichaeltheCM

Are you serious? 

I know less than the TC on this subject, so I'm not about to jump in on the flame-wagon that is this discussion.

However, I would like to say something.

Evolution is a theory. It is a scientific theory because it has empirical evidence supporting it, I know. But what a theory is is an idea that is supported by known facts, until it can be proven by these known facts and thus become a known fact itself. Evolution is not a known fact. It is a theory. If it was absolutely true, like so many are saying, then it would not be reffered to as the evolution theory but scientists. Gravity is the same. As is plate tectonics. I'm not sayingthey are completely wrong, because they do have evidence, but I'm not just shouting that they are right, either.

There.

Silver_Dragon17

You are confusing evolution with the theory of evolution.  They are two completely separate things.

Evolution is the change in allele frequency of a population over time.  It is a fact that this happens.   Let's say that we have three animals of the same species, and three traits that each animal posseses.  Animal A has trait 1, animal B has trait 2, and animal C has trait 3.

The population of animals starts out in equillibrium.  Animal A makes up about 33%, animal B makes up about 33% and animal C makes up about 33% of the total population.  However, something changes in the environment that makes trait 1 a more advantageous trait to have.  This will lead to more animal A's surviving, thus they will produce more offspring.  After many generations of this, the percentage of trait distribution is going to change.  Perhaps animal A now makes up 50% of the population while animals B and C each make up only 25%.  This is evolution, and as I said, it is a fact that this happens.

The theory of evolution on the other hand encompasses a great deal.  It includes explanations on how evolution works, such as natural selection, gene flow, mutations, ect.  It also explains what the consequences of a world created through evolution are, namely the theory of common decent.  In regards to this theory, the only thing that might be considered controversial in the scientific community is to what degree each mechanism plays a part in evolution as a whole.   

 

 

 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!

miracleriver

I do fail to see how assumptions of the existance of things for which you have no evidence vs. something that has an overwhelming amount of evidence is "more logical".

Just because these researchers say that this fire radiation detector "has no evolutionary mechanism of development" doesn't make it so.

Perhaps this is the epitome of available evolution steps with the given enviornment (including the life form to support this ability). Since we can't look into the past and see things that have broken down into the nature of things to be used again (right?) then information could easily be blown away.

I'll stick with believing in God and his creation. It's not gonna change.

Great.  One extremely arguable counter-example among a sea of superb evidence.

I have one huge problem with this post.  The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that all but the most bias skeptic would refute its validity -- which is perfectly fine if you do so on a relative epistomological ground.  You may not believe evolution has enough evidence, or we can not trust how we arrived at such evidence; both of these beliefs are fine.

What pisses me off is that people who are so strict in their expectations for evidence, at the same time, believe in superstitious war Gods that magically created man, the world, and universe in a minute fraction of time.  The evidence for this superstitious and ridiculous belief system is so minute that it is almost painful.  I do not see how someone who is an opponent of evolution could denounce evolution, and at the same time, claim that there exists some sort of magical omnipotent and omnibenevolant entity.

They could, but their beliefs would amount to little more than bias superstition crafted by Biblical dogma.

FoamingPanda