EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Eddy Daze]

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

Perhaps those who are claiming this should put me to the test with some questions, make them slightly cryptic to googleproof them.

egs....."Force modern weight" would be New +Ton = Newton, "filthy miner has possible base" would be "Thymine" from fil(thy mine)r.

Any questions relating to Biology or any of the sciences, my area being the medicinal plants of the British Isles,and that should put that little misconception to bed.

Re the seal limb , I was simply asking that if it was extinct and in the fossil record would it be treated differently regards the theory?

 

[Eddy Daze]

Dont get much time on here, so if anyone has any of those questions I will be online early monday British time.

 

[Alceste]

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

Perhaps those who are claiming this should put me to the test with some questions, make them slightly cryptic to googleproof them.

egs....."Force modern weight" would be New +Ton = Newton, "filthy miner has possible base" would be "Thymine" from fil(thy mine)r.

Any questions relating to Biology or any of the sciences, my area being the medicinal plants of the British Isles,and that should put that little misconception to bed.

Re the seal limb , I was simply asking that if it was extinct and in the fossil record would it be treated differently regards the theory?

That's not science, that's cryptic crosswords. Here are some science questions:

How old is the earth?
How old is life on the earth?
What were the first forms of multi-cellular life on the earth, and how old are they?
How do we know that all mammals including descended from common ancestors?
What are three methods of dating fossil discoveries?

There you go. I'll actually have to look some of those up myself. Thank heavens for google!

 

[DarkSun]

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

It is my understanding that seals, dolphins and whales are all mammals which gradually came to become aquatic species as generations went on. So what were once legs and arms became fins over millions and millions of years.

But in no way are seals evolving to live on land. Rather, they have come to be suited for land and water.

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.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here... but...

Are you trying to say that biological science contradicts itself...? Please elaborate here...

Then once you've done that, could you please explain what does that has to do with the the Law of Conservation of Energy and its apparent contradiction with the Big Bang Theory?

 

[DarkSun]

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

Please do. It'd save me having to look it up.

 

[Magic Man]

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

Perhaps those who are claiming this should put me to the test with some questions, make them slightly cryptic to googleproof them.

egs....."Force modern weight" would be New +Ton = Newton, "filthy miner has possible base" would be "Thymine" from fil(thy mine)r.

Any questions relating to Biology or any of the sciences, my area being the medicinal plants of the British Isles,and that should put that little misconception to bed.

Re the seal limb , I was simply asking that if it was extinct and in the fossil record would it be treated differently regards the theory?

Here's a simple one: What is a species?

I'm not sure what the point of all of this is. Those "encryptions" would be kind of pointless. You're still supposed to know what the question is so that you can answer it. What's the point of making you solve riddle first? Once you did, you could then google it.

Anyway, there's no need for us to test you. Your answers in this thread are sufficient to show your ignorance concerning science.

 

[painted wolf]

Re the seal limb , I was simply asking that if it was extinct and in the fossil record would it be treated differently regards the theory?

We have dozens of fossil seal species showing the transition from land to water.
Including Puijila who was discovered just this year.

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

Including Puijila who was discovered just this year.

 

[Autodidact]

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

Perhaps those who are claiming this should put me to the test with some questions, make them slightly cryptic to googleproof them.

egs....."Force modern weight" would be New +Ton = Newton, "filthy miner has possible base" would be "Thymine" from fil(thy mine)r.

Any questions relating to Biology or any of the sciences, my area being the medicinal plants of the British Isles,and that should put that little misconception to bed.

Re the seal limb , I was simply asking that if it was extinct and in the fossil record would it be treated differently regards the theory?

Can you explain what science is? What is the scientific method and why does it work?

 

[painted wolf]

Please do. It'd save me having to look it up.

Ok... ok... I'll do it..
But so as not to clutter up this thread I'll put it here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/79784-questions-about-evolution.html

wa:do

 

[DarkSun]

Ok... ok... I'll do it..
But so as not to clutter up this thread I'll put it here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/79784-questions-about-evolution.html

wa:do

Thank you.

 

[DarkSun]

*Sigh...*

So HOX gene is short for Homeobox gene?



Well, I already knew about those, so...

 

[painted wolf]

Thank you.

You're welcome.

wa:do

 

[Eddy Daze]

"I'm not sure what the point of all of this is. Those "encryptions" would be kind of pointless. You're still supposed to know what the question is so that you can answer it. What's the point of making you solve riddle first? Once you did, you could then google it."

you would have to have an idea about the subject to solve it , as in my example of Thymine being a base.

Anyway darksun....The thories surrounding big bang and abiogenesis seem to be in favour of singularities or the offchance of life starting in a only single place then expanding , this is an assumption and not what is observeable in the actual physical world.

 

[rojse]

"I'm not sure what the point of all of this is. Those "encryptions" would be kind of pointless. You're still supposed to know what the question is so that you can answer it. What's the point of making you solve riddle first? Once you did, you could then google it."

you would have to have an idea about the subject to solve it , as in my example of Thymine being a base.

Anyway darksun....The thories surrounding big bang and abiogenesis seem to be in favour of singularities or the offchance of life starting in a only single place then expanding , this is an assumption and not what is observeable in the actual physical world.

This is a thread to discuss evolutionary theory. The Big Bang and abiogenesis have nothing to do with evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

Anyway darksun....The thories surrounding big bang and abiogenesis seem to be in favour of singularities or the offchance of life starting in a only single place then expanding , this is an assumption and not what is observeable in the actual physical world.

Actually abiogenesis says nothing about life starting in only a single place then expanding.
Life likely started in a whole bunch of places and competed... all modern living things are simply the descendants of "the winner" or "the winners" of that competition.

Now, if you could please define what you think a species is?

wa:do

 

[rageoftyrael]

You know, i just find it funny that christians act as if the theory of evolution is the dumbest thing they've ever heard of, even though they never bothered to actually learn about it, and don't understand the irony of what they are saying. They ridicule this theory, which at least tries to prove itself, and go ballistic if you point out the logical inconsistencies of creationism.

I had one guy act as if you had to be stupid to believe in the theory of evolution, and then continue to go and say he believe in creationism, as if that was just the most logical explanation. People misunderstand. Creationism is not the most logical, it's the easiest! And that doesn't make it right!

sure, it could be, i'll allow for that, i just hate how christians and the like claim atheists are so, i dont know, rude and loud about our beliefs, as they scream at us. Idk, not able to articulate myself to well right now.

 

[Autodidact]

"I'm not sure what the point of all of this is. Those "encryptions" would be kind of pointless. You're still supposed to know what the question is so that you can answer it. What's the point of making you solve riddle first? Once you did, you could then google it."

you would have to have an idea about the subject to solve it , as in my example of Thymine being a base.

Anyway darksun....The thories surrounding big bang and abiogenesis seem to be in favour of singularities or the offchance of life starting in a only single place then expanding , this is an assumption and not what is observeable in the actual physical world.

Would you start a thread to discuss all of these fascinating topics, and keep them out of this thread about evolution? Thanks.

 

[DarkSun]

Anyway darksun....The thories surrounding big bang and abiogenesis seem to be in favour of singularities or the offchance of life starting in a only single place then expanding , this is an assumption and not what is observeable in the actual physical world.

First off, Abiogenesis Theory, the First Cause argument, the Singularity, the Big Bang theory and anything that does not relate to the Theory of Evolution have no relevance in this thread.

Secondly, if you, like me, find it hard to believe that the universe itself was spawned from "nothing" (it would seem), and if it is so incomprehensible that the Earth and life thereon was just an infinitely impossible cosmic accident, then doesn't this affirm your belief in a Creator? No aspect of science denies the existence of God. Rather, it would seem to suggest it to a lot of people.

Thirdly, evolution is observable. It wasn't so long ago that there were only a handful of dog breeds in the world. Now there are thousands. That is just one observation which is easily explained by evolution. However, you're right in a sense - the progress of evolution is a slow one. But even long-term evolution is observable when you take a look at our DNA and contrast it with the DNA of our ascendants.

 

[Soldano16]

The only thing one needs to understand in this whole debate is that the ONLY people in the world who deny evolution are religious believers. There are NO atheist or agnostic scientists who deny evolution - only believers. So unless you buy into the 'grand conspiracy' theory, it's obvious what's going on.

Sounds like one side has a HUGE emotional issue with evolution and denies it on that basis, not on actual reality.