The Truth of Evolution
Moderator: Moderators
The Truth of Evolution
Post #1Hello everyone. I'm not sure if this has been brought up before in the forum, so if it has, forgive me. But I was wondering if any of the evolutionists out there could answer this question for me......do you know of any truths that exist in the theory of evolution? In other words, is it purely based on speculation and the combination of completely different fossils to make it look like gradualism? Or is there actually truth to it?
Post #21
1.Actually, axeplayer, i´ve met monkey whom can read, and write (in a sense.) We can teach them quite a deal of things you know.Yes, I do see a slight resemblance, in the fact that we both have arms, legs, hands, five fingers, and eyes.(1) But saying that monkeys, who cannot read nor write, and humans, who can read, write, compose music, solve quadratic equations, and send men to the moon, are alike is like saying that a hummingbird and a helicopter are alike in that they can both fly. It doesn't happen. And just to show you the reality of how false evolution is, I throw some mathematical figures at you. (2)Evolution, which is based on an ameoba forming from primordal slime, requires that that ameoba just suddenly appeared from a mix of certain chemicals in the slime.
2. I guess it deppends on how much time you equate suddenly with. Give it a millions of years......
This was very very interesting axeplayer, you do not accept it if it does not follow a certain form of initiation? If Humans can make it, it does not happen? You go against everything here, are you just joking or what?what do I not find satisfactory about that list? The main one is that the speciation of those organisms was artificial, not natural. That is, man selected the corn/plant that they wanted, or they did experiments crossing certain flowers. Until you give an example of how a new species formed due to Natural selection, i will not be satisfied.
Problem is dear, that i doubt you ever get satisfied even if you saw it happen. You would simple refuse to accept it.
axeplayer, i do not really know what you are talking about here. "There were scientists a long time ago too", yes, indeed, you mean, perhaps, when Dinosaurs (or Dragons as you might called them) where alive? Because i suspect that you believe that Dinosaurs lived (live) among us, am i right?Its impossible to observe? So you're saying that if a reptile gives birth to a creature with frayed scales, we wouldn't be able to see it? I'm afraid we could. There were scientists a long time ago too. they most likely did experiments on animals wouldn't you think?
Yes indeed we should keep to the topic, as it seems that you are talking about Dino´s living among us, and we should have done experiments on them in does days, to see where we come from. ehm.....Yet there are no accounts of evolution ever happening through natural selection. But let's try to not get off topic, though I understand how much you would like to, since, there is no truth at all in evolution.
Post #22
You guys gotta be kidding me. I explained several times how artificial selection does not prove evolution in the least bit. The evolutionary theory states that organisms evolved due to natural selection, not artificial selection. That's dandy if humans can breed organisms, but I am saying that nature cannot, and that's what evolution is, creation of a new species due to natural selection. And you still haven't given me any satisfactory replies. You just keep trying to tell me that evolution is proven because nowadays people are breeding plants and animals.This was very very interesting axeplayer, you do not accept it if it does not follow a certain form of initiation? If Humans can make it, it does not happen? You go against everything here, are you just joking or what?
Post #23
You do know that the difference between Evolution and Christianity, is that Evolutionary Theories are constantly changing and evolving. This means, in reality, that we could just change the definition of Evolution, to whatever we find suitable, as the old definition might not suit anymore, because we discovered something new.You guys gotta be kidding me. I explained several times how artificial selection does not prove evolution in the least bit. The evolutionary theory states that organisms evolved due to natural selection, not artificial selection. That's dandy if humans can breed organisms, but I am saying that nature cannot, and that's what evolution is, creation of a new species due to natural selection. And you still haven't given me any satisfactory replies. You just keep trying to tell me that evolution is proven because nowadays people are breeding plants and animals.
Christianity on the other hand, never corrects itself, and this is the reason for Christians being forced to "re-interpret" constantly, as it does not suit reality.
Post #24
The problem seems to be with the "natural ... artificial" distinction. I don't see that it exists. Any selection mechanism that favors one characteristic or acts against another will do. It will tend to reinforce a favored characteristic and eliminate an undesirable one. The only difference is that, in the "natural" state, favored always means "enhances the ability to reproduce". In the artificial state it may mean something else (good looks by human standards for example.)organisms evolved due to natural selection, not artificial selection
There's no question that "natural" selection exists and it selects for or against certain characteristics. The fact that there's some purported motivation behind "artificial" (i.e. human) selection has nothing to do with its being a selection process and I see no reason to think that the motivation of the selection process would in any way cause different results. That is, it's still evolution no matter how motivated.
Post #25
No, I'm not saying that there were necessarily scientists recording things when dinosaurs roamed. but what i am saying, is that there were some very early scientists, who most likely recorded some things on how certain organisms looked, and within 6000 years, a small change of some sort is bound to happen, and all the scientists have to do nowadays is compare the present day appearance of the organism with the way it looked 6000 years ago. it may not be a new species, but it should have even the slightest variation.axeplayer, i do not really know what you are talking about here. "There were scientists a long time ago too", yes, indeed, you mean, perhaps, when Dinosaurs (or Dragons as you might called them) where alive? Because i suspect that you believe that Dinosaurs lived (live) among us, am i right?
Post #26
Are you guys seriously not getting the distinction between natural and artificial selection?!? Evolution is based on natural selection. No one here has yet answered my request for evidence of speciation through natural selection. All you give me is "oh artificial selection is there, so natural selection must be there too". You guys obviously don't get it. ARTIFICIAL SELECTION IS HUMANS PICKING TRAITS. I AGREE, ARTIFICIAL SELECTION DOES TAKE PLACE. THIS IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER ACCOUNTS FOR NATURAL SELECTION TAKING PLACE AS WELL. PEOPLE CREATING NEW SPECIES IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE SAME AS NEW SPECIES BEING CREATED NATURALLY.The problem seems to be with the "natural ... artificial" distinction. I don't see that it exists. Any selection mechanism that favors one characteristic or acts against another will do. It will tend to reinforce a favored characteristic and eliminate an undesirable one.
Post #27
Actually, it is not the opposite. The mechanism is exactly the same. It's basic genetics. (and you really don't need to shout--use boldface, or blue text, for emphasis.)axeplayer wrote:Are you guys seriously not getting the distinction between natural and artificial selection?!? Evolution is based on natural selection. No one here has yet answered my request for evidence of speciation through natural selection. All you give me is "oh artificial selection is there, so natural selection must be there too". You guys obviously don't get it. ARTIFICIAL SELECTION IS HUMANS PICKING TRAITS. I AGREE, ARTIFICIAL SELECTION DOES TAKE PLACE. THIS IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER ACCOUNTS FOR NATURAL SELECTION TAKING PLACE AS WELL. PEOPLE CREATING NEW SPECIES IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE SAME AS NEW SPECIES BEING CREATED NATURALLY.The problem seems to be with the "natural ... artificial" distinction. I don't see that it exists. Any selection mechanism that favors one characteristic or acts against another will do. It will tend to reinforce a favored characteristic and eliminate an undesirable one.
Here's what happens:
- a mutation occurs in the DNA of an egg or sperm
- the egg or sperm participates in fertilization, and forms an individual organism
- the organism has offspring, some of which inherit the mutation
- the mutation is now a part of the species' genetic diversity
- as generations go by, the new genetic variant is inherited by more individuals
- if the genetic variation is helpful, then individuals that carry it have more offspring, and out-compete those who do not carry that particular genetic variation
- if the genetic variation is deleterious, then individuals that carry it have fewer offspring, and the variation is lost
What, then, defines selection as "artificial"? If a species of herbivore becomes extinct because a species of carnivore eats them all, is this "natural" or "artificial" selection against the herbivores? Is it "artifical" if the carnivores use spears, rather than claws, to kill the herbivores? If a species of plants does better because a species of animal spreads the plants' seeds, is this "natural" or "artificial" selection for seed dispersal? Is it "artificial" if people eat the fruits and disperse the seeds in their feces, but "natural" if bears eat the fruits and disperse the seeds in their feces?
The distinction between "artificial" and "natural" selection is artificial. Claiming that they are fundamentally different does not make them so. For the species that is under selection, there is no difference in mechanism.
I think we'll have to be Clintonesque here, and ask you to define "witness." Do you want someone to stand there, and observe every birth of every individual in all populations of a species, and then watch as descendents of the first group try to mate, but cannot produce offspring?axeplayer wrote:How is it then no one in the history of the world has ever witnessed the creation of a new species through natural selection?
Maybe it is sufficient to point out that house finches were introduced to the US from Europe, by humans, separately on the East Coast and on the West Coast. Now, as the two populations finally begin to encounter each other after slowly spreading outward from their points of introduction, the two populations cannot interbreed. This defines them as different species, but they were the same species when they were introduced.
...or do you call this "artificial" because humans existed in North America as the finches evolved?
What about the dung beetles that were introduced to North America and to Australia, from a population in France? The purpose was to take care of the increasing quantities of cow poop that were produced by the cows people were raising for food. The native dung beetles couldn't keep up, so they brought over beetles that specialized in cow dung. Now, the three populations--French, N. American, and Australian, have diverged. They no longer look similar to each other--nor do they look like the original French population, either. Evolution is happening, and these three populations are evolving differently, as is required by the genetic mechanisms that make it happen.
These are pretty fast changes, even if they have taken more than one human generation to occur. Even so, no single person watched the entire series of events, watching the birth of every house finch, or every dung beetle. You may consider this to be "proof" that no one has witnessed these speciation events, because the person watching the beginning would be dead, and their kids would have to watch the current events. Still, people overall have witnessed the process. People watched the birds, and people watched the beetles; we have historical evidence of what happened.
Bear in mind, however, that your insistence on "eyewitness accounts" is worthless. Our State Police Criminal Investigation Lab reports that no state prosecutor will take a case to court based only on eyewitness accounts. They are too unreliable. Instead, they require forensic evidence, recreating the events at the crime scene from trace evidence. In the same way, eyewitness accounts of evolution (or creation, for that matter) must be considered to be unreliable. We must use forensic methods, building our understanding from trace evidence. The trace evidence is overwhelming at this point. Those who have actually looked at it come down strongly on the side of evolution.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #28
Oh My God (Intended)...No, I'm not saying that there were necessarily scientists recording things when dinosaurs roamed. but what i am saying, is that there were some very early scientists, who most likely recorded some things on how certain organisms looked, and within 6000 years, a small change of some sort is bound to happen, and all the scientists have to do nowadays is compare the present day appearance of the organism with the way it looked 6000 years ago. it may not be a new species, but it should have even the slightest variation.
axeplayer, axeplayer, axeplayer.. José, anyone, help me here...
The Reptiles we call dinosaurs, existed for about 165 million years. And are calculated to have become extinct about 65 million years ago. Their may be some reptiles that we could define as ´dinosaurs´, Todays bird for example are amongst them.
Homo Sapiens, turned up around 400 000 thousand, to 200 000 thousand years ago. Whiles Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Contemporary Humans), came to be around 130 000 thousand years ago.
We could actually, with some acceptance from other people on this forum, consider ourself as Homo Disputatio (the debating Human).
Post #29
You still have not answered my question about proof of speciation through natural selection.LillSnopp wrote:Oh My God (Intended)...No, I'm not saying that there were necessarily scientists recording things when dinosaurs roamed. but what i am saying, is that there were some very early scientists, who most likely recorded some things on how certain organisms looked, and within 6000 years, a small change of some sort is bound to happen, and all the scientists have to do nowadays is compare the present day appearance of the organism with the way it looked 6000 years ago. it may not be a new species, but it should have even the slightest variation.
axeplayer, axeplayer, axeplayer.. José, anyone, help me here...
The Reptiles we call dinosaurs, existed for about 165 million years. And are calculated to have become extinct about 65 million years ago. Their may be some reptiles that we could define as ´dinosaurs´, Todays bird for example are amongst them.
Homo Sapiens, turned up around 400 000 thousand, to 200 000 thousand years ago. Whiles Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Contemporary Humans), came to be around 130 000 thousand years ago.
We could actually, with some acceptance from other people on this forum, consider ourself as Homo Disputatio (the debating Human).
You've just given me some dates and scientific names.Post #30
the greatest problem for the theory of evolution by natural selection, is that it cannot enable new organs or traits to emerge in living things. Natural selection cannot develop a species' genetic data; therefore, it cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species. The greatest defender of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refer to this impasse of natural selection as follows;
The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.
Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as an intelligent designer. However, natural selection has no intelligence. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity." These systems and organs are composed of a great number of parts cooperating together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all its components intact).
Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to foresee the future and aim directly at the advantage that is to be acquired at the final stage. Since natural selection has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact, which demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin, who wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms05.html
The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.
Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as an intelligent designer. However, natural selection has no intelligence. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity." These systems and organs are composed of a great number of parts cooperating together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all its components intact).
Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to foresee the future and aim directly at the advantage that is to be acquired at the final stage. Since natural selection has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact, which demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin, who wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms05.html
