EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Magic Man]

It is illogical to presume the flower of an hawthorn and the flower of an apple have a common ancestor on the branch of a fossilised seperate tree, simply because of the concidences

No, it's very logical to think that two separate trees had a common ancestor. That doesn't mean that one day that one tree "had two kids", one of which was a hawthorn tree and the other was an apple tree. It just means that through very minor mutations over time, one kind of tree spawned a different kind of tree, and so on.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K. so what you're saying is that at some point a bunch of separate "species" (your inaccurate use of the word) were created, and they have branched out into more of what scientists call species, but you call ??? So new "species" (in the common, scientific usage) do arise, but you disagree that all species share a common ancestor. Is that right?

Let's call your things kinds, so we're using the same language, O.K.? Around how many kinds were created? Around when?

By what process do new species come to be, in your opinion, the process described by ToE, or some other process?

How did the original kinds come into existence? Magic poofing?

 

[Autodidact]

Auto...it is not I that wants seperate words eg carbon and helium, buteg carbon six and twelve , how do you know no scientist believes the species are set, those words were reportedly uttered by Darwin, jumping on the conspiracy theory is a bit daft believe me there is much unpublished or revealed stuff due to fear of ridicule, your last comment sums it up, so many individual ideas and theories regarding evolution that it can be confirmed by science later on, by that I mean what is actually observed, if a great clunking discovery that would turn it on its head came along and it was brave enough to publish, something could be found to back it up and fit in

Are you familiar with the period? It looks like this: . It's really helpful to people trying to understand what the heck you're saying.

I didn't say no scientist, I said no Biologist. Actually, that's not quite true. There is one. His name is Jonathan Wells. He is a follower of Rev. Syung Yung Moon, who got his Ph.d in Biology specifically so he could argue against ToE. He has not however made any scientific discoveries refuting it, nor has he published in any scientific journals.

It's obvious that you know nothing about science or how it works. New discoveries lead to Nobel prizes, not ridicule. What is ridiculed is bad methodology, not novel results.

If a great clunking discovery came along that disproved ToE, it would be published to great acclaim, and the person responsible would be one of the world's most famous scientists. In 150 years, that hasn't happened. What has happened is that all the great clunking discoveries confirmed it. The huge one was around 1910, when scientists learned that the earth was old enough to permit time for evolution to happen. Another huge one was DNA, which pretty much demonstrated irrefutably that every organism on earth descended from a single common ancestor.

What words were reportedly uttered by Darwin?

Do you know how to use the quote function?

Have you ever noticed that opponents of ToE can barely write?

 

[painted wolf]

Why is it illogical to presume that a hawthorn and an apple have a common ancestor?

wa:do

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Have you ever noticed that opponents of ToE can barely write?"

Yes.

And that is because the rarely think.

 

[rojse]

Just so people are clear to my view on life and its history...there are many origins or start points, so many seperate species, because of adaptation etc these historically can be represented like trees, but individual trees. It is illogical to presume the flower of an hawthorn and the flower of an apple have a common ancestor on the branch of a fossilised seperate tree, simply because of the concidences (also If I mention or link to a source do not jump to the conclusion I agree with everything it is saying) regarding the new scientists stuff the reply I got was as if I was putting myself forward as sopmeone who had studied to an high degree evolutionary Biology or was pretending to have , no the point was that mainstream science changes to what it accepts and also individuals change to what parts or persons slant they accept.

The reason science changes is that people are constantly trying to prove that they are right, and others are trying to prove that they are not.

I'd say it's a lot better than automatically accepting dogma, regardless of how dated it has become.

 

[painted wolf]

I'd say it's a lot better than automatically accepting dogma, regardless of how dated it has become.

Oh that is totally the easiest route to take.
No complex thinking required, you just accept what someone says some old writings say... and they have to be telling the truth because they say they are... and they are talking for the forces of 'right' and 'good'.

It's win-win.

wa:do

 

[rageoftyrael]

yes, painted wolf, use the force of sarcasm... lol

 

[DarkSun]

I recently posted this on my university's discussion board. Hopefully it clarifies a few things.

It probably wouldn't be mentioned in a science text book explicitly because it's kind of assumed you would understand the difference if you understood Darwin's theory of evolution.


Adaption occurs when an organism can "adapt" to suit its environment. This has absolutely no change on the organism's individual DNA. Adaptions could include becoming more flexible, gaining a tolerance to alcohol or another drug, blood becoming more viscous due to erythropoiten secretion from the kidneys in response to hypoxia. Whatever. These are adaptations that the body makes during its life.

Evolution has nothing to do with adaption.

Darwin's Theory of evolution is underpinned by the theory of Natural Selection, where an individual within a species who has the best genes suited to survive in their environment, will be more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Notice that it is not the individual that is changing here. It is the species itself that changes as the organisms in the species with the superior genes pass on their genes, while the organism with the inferior genes dies out. It's the fundamental law of nature: survival of the fittest. These small changes within a species as generations pass lead to evolution, because only the best genes are being passed on.


Examples of evolution include the change from primate to human over the course of two-million years (homo habilis to homo sapien). Species are constantly evolving and changing as time goes on, and this is because of evolution, not adaption.


Confusing evolution with adaption is an easy mistake, it seems, because a lot of Fundamentalist Creationists tend to do it a lot. It's really amusing when you hear someone say something like: "Evolution is a lie! How can a dinosaur wave its arms around and turn into a bird? It's ridiculous."


Explaining that this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution can be kinda frustrating.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Confusing evolution with adaption is an easy mistake, it seems, because a lot of Fundamentalist Creationists tend to do it a lot. It's really amusing when you hear someone say something like: "Evolution is a lie! How can a dinosaur wave its arms around and turn into a bird? It's ridiculous."

I understand that argument. But I don't accept it.

This not to say that SOME YEC's make this mistake and they can be shown it is a mistake. But then they are no longer YEC's. They LEARN.

True YEC's DON'T learn - ever. NO science will change their minds because their objection isn't scientific, its theological. And theology doesn't change.

 

[painted wolf]

Evolution is the result of accumulated heritable adaptations. (and heritable non-adaptive traits.)

I think the problem comes from people looking at traits as a complete unit... "arm" vs. "wing" and that a single change (or a couple of changes) can bring you from a "complete arm" to a "complete wing".
They expect these changes to happen dramatically (ie, the dog giving birth to a litter of kittens) When in reality they happen piecemeal and in fits and starts.
They also expect a "wing" to always have the "purpose" of a "wing".... that is, if you can't use it to fly, then it is useless and can't ever be useful to an organism. Wings are for flying, therefore the first wing has to be perfectly adapted to flight, right out of the box.
(they are fond of saying that things only become imperfect over time.)

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Also when you understand about HOX genes, that explains a lot, I think. And maybe you would give us a lesson on it?

 

[rojse]

Oh that is totally the easiest route to take.
No complex thinking required, you just accept what someone says some old writings say... and they have to be telling the truth because they say they are... and they are talking for the forces of 'right' and 'good'.

It's win-win.

wa:do

Fortunately, there are a lot of people on this board who actually think and debate about their religious stance, and don't merely believe something because their parents do, or their acquaintances.

 

[Eddy Daze]

Regarding limb change, would it be concluded that modern day seals etc are evolving to live on land?

One problem that strikes me is science in general is not abiding to its own rules of observable phenomena, we see at this present time many forms developing in wombs , eggs etc all over the globe, we do not see an handful or a singularity, these are assumptions in the so called big bang theory also.

 

[Eddy Daze]

O.K. so what you're saying is that at some point a bunch of separate "species" (your inaccurate use of the word) were created, and they have branched out into more of what scientists call species, but you call ??? So new "species" (in the common, scientific usage) do arise, but you disagree that all species share a common ancestor. Is that right?

Let's call your things kinds, so we're using the same language, O.K.? Around how many kinds were created? Around when?

By what process do new species come to be, in your opinion, the process described by ToE, or some other process?

How did the original kinds come into existence? Magic poofing?

Yes I am saying seperate species came into being and for all I know could be still being created, this is a universal observable phenomena in the birth and destruction of suns planets and galaxies, where I would say we are going wrong is concentrating too much on singular begining and ends rather than realising life and the universe is cyclical

 

[themadhair]

Regarding limb change,

Read Kevin Padian’s testimony to the Dover trial:
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Padian demonstrative slides
Here is one of the best descriptions of limn evolution I’ve ever seen.

would it be concluded that modern day seals etc are evolving to live on land?

The question doesn’t make sense.

One problem that strikes me is science in general is not abiding to its own rules of observable phenomena, we see at this present time many forms developing in wombs , eggs etc all over the globe, we do not see an handful or a singularity, these are assumptions in the so called big bang theory also.

One problem that strikes me about creationists is that they never actually research scientific topics to see what evidence and observations we do have. When you make statements like the above you are screaming “scientific illiterate” from the rooftop.

 

[Autodidact]

Regarding limb change, would it be concluded that modern day seals etc are evolving to live on land?

No, there is no evidence of that. On the contrary, scientists believe that seals descended from land animals.

One problem that strikes me is science in general is not abiding to its own rules of observable phenomena, we see at this present time many forms developing in wombs , eggs etc all over the globe, we do not see an handful or a singularity, these are assumptions in the so called big bang theory also.

Since you know almost nothing about science in general, how would you know?

It's apparent from your post that you have no idea what evolution is. Your post is gibberish. It's hard to argue against ignorance this profound. Are you interested in learning what the Theory of Evolution is? What are assumptions? What are you even trying to say? If you don't make some effort to communicate what on earth you're trying to say, I may not be able to continue to respond to you.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes I am saying seperate species came into being and for all I know could be still being created, this is a universal observable phenomena in the birth and destruction of suns planets and galaxies, where I would say we are going wrong is concentrating too much on singular begining and ends rather than realising life and the universe is cyclical

Whatever...gibberish...no idea what you're talking about.

Now would you answer my questions? Thank you.

 

[Alceste]

Regarding limb change, would it be concluded that modern day seals etc are evolving to live on land?

One problem that strikes me is science in general is not abiding to its own rules of observable phenomena, we see at this present time many forms developing in wombs , eggs etc all over the globe, we do not see an handful or a singularity, these are assumptions in the so called big bang theory also.

You should see if you can get your hands on a copy of David Attinburgh's Life of Mammals.

It goes into enough detail on the evolution of sea mammals that you should at least pick up a general impression. As Auto said, seals descended from land mammals. All mammals (including us and seals) descended from ancestors that were very like shrews and lived among the dinosaurs.

 

[Magic Man]

Regarding limb change, would it be concluded that modern day seals etc are evolving to live on land?

One problem that strikes me is science in general is not abiding to its own rules of observable phenomena, we see at this present time many forms developing in wombs , eggs etc all over the globe, we do not see an handful or a singularity, these are assumptions in the so called big bang theory also.

Could you repeat this in English please?