Evolution is illogical and non sense

[Theweirdtophat]

You don't even know enough about evolution for me to give you an answer you would understand. Read the book Evolution for Dummies and then the books by Richard Dawkins.

I know enough to know there's holes in it. I think some things are true and some aren't. If evolution was really proven, we wouldn't have people debating it. There wouldn't be anything to debate if it was truly proven.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I know enough to know there's holes in it. I think some things are true and some aren't. If evolution was really proven, we wouldn't have people debating it. There wouldn't be anything to debate if it was truly proven.

Evolution is established scientific fact. One cannot "prove" anything as one would prove mathematical theories.

*EDIT
Actually we don't have people debating evolution. We have science which upholds evolution and we have non-scientific sources attempting to interject into science. But there is currently no scientific debate about the validity of evolution.

 

[Ouroboros]

If there was proof people wouldn't be debating it.

Well, the debate we're having is pushed by religious groups. It's not a debate within the scientific community.

Proof isn't the same as evidence

True.

. Proof is necessary to prove something.

Eh. Yeah. That's what the term means.

Have you ever done a mathematical proof? You know, Pascal's proof of infinite number of primes is a proof based on induction. That's a proof. But so what?

Evidence can help support your claim, but it doesn't make your claim irrefutable.

Sure. It is of course possible that God created all that evidence in the fossil record and the genetic evidence just to confuse us. Or, it's also possible that aliens created all those things to play a prank on us. But what is most likely? That the theory that fits the evidence is the most likely theory that fits evidence? Yeah... because it's the theory that fits the evidence. That species evolve is a fact. That species evolve is one of the evidences for the theory. So if you have no problem disputing the evidence, then you shouldn't have much problem with the theory.

If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes around.

We evolved from a common ancestor of the apes and us. Not directly from the apes. But technically, we're still apes.

All these labels, "apes", "human", "bird", etc, are just terms we have invented to distinguish groups of individuals with specific traits. In reality, these categories are fluid and there's a lot of overlap.

Why haven't other creatures become as advanced as we are? We should be seeing technologically advanced crocodiles or turtles by now, both of which are much older than humans. Why are we the only exception? It doesn't make sense and there's too many holes in evolution theory for me to accept. It feels like it's missing something.

So all Americans are Europeans? Every car ever made is all a Ford Model-T? There's never a split and difference of traits but everything evolves exactly identical? No. That's not how it works.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

How different is a turtle today compared to prehistoric times? Not much difference, but I know not all of them can advance the same way. What if some were psychic and others powers instead of relying on technology? We should be able to communicate with turtles or other reptiles by now. They wouldn't be relying on just instinct. Animals rely on instinct. We have instincts too but we don't rely on it like they do.

A turtle today should be very different compared to many years ago, but they don't seem to have changed much in appearance or intelligence and they are older than us, yet we not only have changed in appearance drastically but also in intelligence. There's a hole there or something sped up our evolution.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How different is a turtle today compared to prehistoric times? Not much difference, but I know not all of them can advance the same way. What if some were psychic and others powers instead of relying on technology? We should be able to communicate with turtles or other reptiles by now. They wouldn't be relying on just instinct. Animals rely on instinct. We have instincts too but we don't rely on it like they do.

A turtle today should be very different compared to many years ago, but they don't seem to have changed much in appearance or intelligence and they are older than us, yet we not only have changed in appearance drastically but also in intelligence. There's a hole there or something sped up our evolution.

What about bacteria? It is far far different now than it was in prehistoric times. Far different than we were from our previous selves. Who sped up the bacteria evolution?

 

[Ouroboros]

How different is a turtle today compared to prehistoric times? Not much difference, but I know not all of them can advance the same way.

Because of the unchanged environmental niche. When there's no selective pressure, you have no phenotypical changes, but what you get is a larger genetic variety that doesn't change the body plan and such. Only small changes that still fit the niche. Just like sharks. Same thing. It's also called a peak.

What if some were psychic and others powers instead of relying on technology? We should be able to communicate with turtles or other reptiles by now. They wouldn't be relying on just instinct. Animals rely on instinct. We have instincts too but we don't rely on it like they do.

No. That's not how it works. What you're suggesting is intelligent design. If there was an intelligent designer, then yes, you would have telepathy and psychic powers, but since evolution isn't guided and there are peaks and valleys in the environmental landscape, this is a non-point.

A turtle today should be very different compared to many years ago, but they don't seem to have changed much in appearance or intelligence and they are older than us, yet we not only have changed in appearance drastically but also in intelligence. There's a hole there or something sped up our evolution.

They don't have to since the selective pressure holds their appearance fit for the environment.

It is explained in the theory, but it takes a bit of studying to learn these special ins-and-outs of it.

There are four different kinds of selective pressure, and then you also have sexual selection. It's not just a single or simple process. There are many factors involved, hence the need of a theory to explain how it works.

 

[Etritonakin]

Just some thoughts ....

I was thinking the other day -after reading something on here about knowing now that life happened by "ordinary" occurrences (as opposed to unusual occurrences -such as "creation", I believe was the point)....

about the shared root of the words ordinary and ordain.

If life arose on earth with no creative influence after the big bang, let's say, and that is called "ordinary", it still essentially means that the nature of the big bang, or whatever, ordained that life would arise on earth.

"Creation" would require that things were ordained by decision. Decision would then be the "unusual" thing.

(Creation would also require the same essential steps as the "ordinary" -though one with creative power could take any number of paths to the same result.)

Those who believe in creation should accept that a being who created the universe and the earth -and had written that it was all formed to be inhabited -ordained that earthly physical life would arise by the nature of the beginning of the universe.... that is to say that, one way or another, the things which he caused to occur and exist would be the process which caused -and the building blocks of -that life.

The decision would not have begun with the creation of earth -or life -or man and the animals spoken of in Genesis -and what was spoken of in Genesis would not be the VERY beginning.

Therefore it should not be assumed by believers that God did not ordain evolution -whether by ordaining it by the nature of the big bang, or causing things to happen after the big bang exactly the way we are discovering they did. If life on earth required that a space rock hit earth, for example -how could a believer know whether God ordained that occurrence from the very beginning -or purposefully aimed said rock afterward????

If God existed before the big bang and afterward -and caused it all -how could we know when he decided what -and when he did what? Why would he not be capable of a slow process like evolution and a quick process like direct creation. He has forever. Why rush all of the time -unless it's necessary or beneficial at some point?

That is not to say that everything that is thought or hypothesized about evolution is true -but that what is KNOWN can only be indicative of what happened.

It is written that the things of God are apparent BY WHAT WAS MADE. Creationists accuse others of not accepting the obvious about what was made -it is obvious to them that it WAS made by decision, but they can be just as closed-minded when considering such things as "evolution". True science can only say that what is known are obviously the steps by which life came to exist -and anything they might discover should be, to the believer, more data bout God and his ways.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Heb 11:2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear

(In other words, the things which do appear ["the worlds" -plural....framed -some work went into them] are made of and by that which is not immediately apparent. Religion considers the "who" and science considers the "how", until such time as it might be introduced to the "who" somehow)

What science has discovered thus far -and what is KNOWN -apart from what is hypothesized -and considering that "science" cannot simply assume a creator -is not in conflict with scripture.....

unless one assumes -quite falsely -that scripture says the earth is 6,000 years old -or something like that.

Many things are ASSUMED about what is written that is not actually specifically written. For example.... Adam being the first man by biblical definition has nothing to do with whether or not there were ever other humanoids on earth -even when he created the first "man" in his image -with the potential for eternal life.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is not a tirade; it is an explanation regarding why you are utterly confused about what "objectivity" and "subjectivity" really mean. That is the crux of creationism; redefining terms to fit a presupposed agenda and spreading ignorance like filth.

Demanding that science chuck the Theory of Evolution because creationists don't like it is completely too much to ask and ludicrous. Conclusions in science, as you have eloquently pointed out, are "forced by the evidence". The evidence supports evolution, which is why evolution is held to be true. Evidence does not support divine creation, which is why science doesn't waste its precious time on proving or disproving divine creation.

Moreover, you grossly misunderstand science as well; because science is more about disproving than it is about proving.

...... a thermostat exemplifies rudimentary free will.....

This is how evolutionists deal with the obvious fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

Evolution theory is a tragedy of the human being engrossed with the sin of knowledge of good and evil, and thereby God made them blind to the obvious fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Because of the unchanged environmental niche. When there's no selective pressure, you have no phenotypical changes, but what you get is a larger genetic variety that doesn't change the body plan and such. Only small changes that still fit the niche. Just like sharks. Same thing. It's also called a peak.


No. That's not how it works. What you're suggesting is intelligent design. If there was an intelligent designer, then yes, you would have telepathy and psychic powers, but since evolution isn't guided and there are peaks and valleys in the environmental landscape, this is a non-point.


They don't have to since the selective pressure holds their appearance fit for the environment.

It is explained in the theory, but it takes a bit of studying to learn these special ins-and-outs of it.

There are four different kinds of selective pressure, and then you also have sexual selection. It's not just a single or simple process. There are many factors involved, hence the need of a theory to explain how it works.

Surely we weren't the only living organism in the area where pre-humans lived. They all should have changed drastically if they were in the environment we were in.

 

[`mud]

Just a further thought

Religiously thinking, it has to start with the theist god.
The same god that Jews, Cristians, and Muslims worship.
Now add Jesus and maybe Mohammed(sic) and you have a problem.
`
How did humans evolve, Moses and followers think that their god did it.
Their god scooped up some sand from the Earth and created 'man'.
Of course he already created light, Earth, stars, plants, seeds, and such.
Lets not forget the dumb animals, and the birds and fish, and bacteria and such.
After he created man, he created woman, not neccessarily in any particular order.
But the woman was made from the rib of man,
and the same sand from which the man was made.
Sooooo...from a rib came a woman, but no breath was blown into her.
`
Now they had kids and the kids had kids with other people in other cities.
These people must have been made of different sand, from other cities.
Some of them were dark skinned, some were yellowish, some were absolutely black.
They couldn't have turned those colors, could they ?
I know, I know, brighter sunshine, and more of it ??? I think not !
`
I wonder where they were created, from what sand, and by who.
`
They couldn't have evolved, could they ?
~
'mud

 

[Ouroboros]

Surely we weren't the only living organism in the area where pre-humans lived. They all should have changed drastically if they were in the environment we were in.

No, it's not that simple. Evolution doesn't follow a guided path based on our logical or rational thought about what we think is best. There are many ways to solve the same problems. We just had one way. Besides, there were several different paths of homonids.

 

[Parsimony]

If evolution was really proven, we wouldn't have people debating it. There wouldn't be anything to debate if it was truly proven.

I have literally debated with people over whether the Earth is round or not. Does that make the Earth's roundness unproven?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Surely we weren't the only living organism in the area where pre-humans lived. They all should have changed drastically if they were in the environment we were in.

Many did.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I have literally debated with people over whether the Earth is round or not. Does that make the Earth's roundness unproven?

The Earth's roundness isn't as common of a debate as evolution. Mainly because you can go to space and take a picture or see it for yourself. With evolution it's tricky because you look at fossils and you end up making guesses. For all we know, time didn't evolve these creatures and maybe an alien race came down and experimented on one just for research. We don't know because it's in the past. They are educated guesses but it is a guess nonetheless and it seems like nothing outside of inventing a time machine is going to really prove it for sure.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The Earth's roundness isn't as common of a debate as evolution. Mainly because you can go to space and take a picture or see it for yourself. With evolution it's tricky because you look at fossils and you end up making guesses. For all we know, time didn't evolve these creatures and maybe an alien race came down and experimented on one just for research. We don't know because it's in the past. They are educated guesses but it is a guess nonetheless and it seems like nothing outside of inventing a time machine is going to really prove it for sure.

You think evolution is just based off of fossil evidence? That may be why you aren't convinced .

 

[Parsimony]

The Earth's roundness isn't as common of a debate as evolution. Mainly because you can go to space and take a picture or see it for yourself. With evolution it's tricky because you look at fossils and you end up making guesses. For all we know, time didn't evolve these creatures and maybe an alien race came down and experimented on one just for research. We don't know because it's in the past. They are educated guesses but it is a guess nonetheless and it seems like nothing outside of inventing a time machine is going to really prove it for sure.

That is indeed one of the challenges faced by biologists. We don't know all of the "hows", "whys" or "whens" when it comes to evolution and may not ever know the answer to all of those questions. However, all of the evidence as it currently sits points to the idea that all living things we see today evolved from unicellular ancestors. The theory of common ancestry makes predictions that can be tested. If all creatures can be traced back to unicellular forms, then the oldest fossils should be single cells. Then we should see fossils of simple, colonial creatures that aren't as old as the oldest single-celled fossils but are older than more complex animals. Then we should see fossils of simple, truly multicellular creatures (like jellyfish) which should predate invertebrates with simple brains, which should predate invertebrates with notochords which should predate true vertebrates and so on and so on. So far, the dating of fossils lines up with these predictions. One of the things that makes this beautifully scientific is that it is is always falsifiable: we could always discover a bed of fossilized, complex multicellular organisms that are billions of years old. That would throw a major spanner in our understanding of common descent. As it currently stands, however, common descent is well-supported.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Earth's roundness isn't as common of a debate as evolution. Mainly because you can go to space and take a picture or see it for yourself. With evolution it's tricky because you look at fossils and you end up making guesses.

First of all, analyzing bones isn't as much guesswork as people might think. You can see muscle attachments, sutures, arches, plates, and so, so much more. If you have a fossil of one animal and then of another, you actually can recognize features that are common or different.

Secondly, we have today over a half a million fossils. It's not a small amount of a few bones here and there and a little creative guessing done, but extensive work that's gone into some of these. For instance, the evolution of the horse has too many fossils, so no one has been able to even go through them all. And the line of how the modern horse evolved is quite well established. The same for whales, trilobites, and so on.

Lastly, the genetic evidence we have today is far more extensive than you might know. Just like you can trace the Biblical text by comparing copy-errors, you can do the same in DNA, but to a much greater detail. Read up on ERVs and transposons especially.

For all we know, time didn't evolve these creatures and maybe an alien race came down and experimented on one just for research.

Sure. And they're still at it, since we know our DNA has changed. You can even see how things like corn for instance has evolved the past 10,000 years, based on genetic comparison. You also have bacteria, virus, worms, and pests (even examples of rats on an island that has separated into two sub-groups of different genetic code in just some 100 years), all changing genetic code in our life time.

We don't know because it's in the past. They are educated guesses but it is a guess nonetheless and it seems like nothing outside of inventing a time machine is going to really prove it for sure.

Except for the example of living samples of animals, plants, and such that we can compare. Today, we can study the DNA and see how it's changing. And how a body looks like is strongly dependent on the genetic code. The very same thing we know not only can change, but is changing.

 

[Sapiens]

The Earth's roundness isn't as common of a debate as evolution. Mainly because you can go to space and take a picture or see it for yourself. With evolution it's tricky because you look at fossils and you end up making guesses. For all we know, time didn't evolve these creatures and maybe an alien race came down and experimented on one just for research. We don't know because it's in the past. They are educated guesses but it is a guess nonetheless and it seems like nothing outside of inventing a time machine is going to really prove it for sure.

I don't know why people keep coming back to fossils. Sure, we started there, but we have progressed so much further that fossils are now just interesting artifacts and if they all disappeared that would make for no change what-so-ever in the modern view of evolution or taxonomy.

 

[ArtieE]

This is how evolutionists deal with the obvious fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

What's there to deal with? I am an evolutionist and I've always been free. I find freedom real and relevant.

Evolution theory is a tragedy of the human being engrossed with the sin of knowledge of good and evil,

So evolutionists know the difference between good and evil but you don't since you don't have this sin of knowledge?

 

[ArtieE]

I have literally debated with people over whether the Earth is round or not. Does that make the Earth's roundness unproven?

To a Muslim of course. "Muslim scientist says world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth because Quran says so."