• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why evolution did not comes like this ?

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I see it from different angle , where is the problem to make more angles ?

let's suppose that evolutists said "I discover that humans evoluted by missing organs "

humans without heart , then comes human with heart , step by step ...etc

is not this evolution ?

Well, no. It isn't. We know enough of how lifeforms evolved to tell confidently that it did not happen that way.



For me it's necessary .

It is? Why? How?


so lifeform could be only with intact body ? so evolution with missing organs could not be existed , step by step ?

Evolution is (usually) gradual, but not by incomplete, inviable lifeforms. Quite on the contrary, each and every transitional form was and must have been succesfull in its own terms.


I mean like the rain building the stream of a new river , drop by drop .

It seems to me that you are expecting too much of that comparison, so much so that it broke up.


why not ? our very old ancestors could had missing organs ??

Simplifying things just a little bit, we can say that we know they did not.

for exemple human without eyes , next human with eyes?

No. Far before any of our ancestors could be called even approximately humanoid they had eyes already, going back to early vertebrates if not even longer ago.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
But the other evolutionist just refrenced calculations with endo virus whatever, saying it was extremely unlikely. And now suddenly ypu can't do calculations?
We can't do calculations to predict when and where mutations WILL occur in reproducing organisms. The calculation you are referring to is a calculation working out the probability that those specific ERVs would occur in two separate DNA sequences in those exact locations. They are completely different.

Also, you have still not shown or explained the mathematics that you say makes evolution unbelievable. Please do so or I will be forced to assume that no such formula exists and that you were merely making it up.

Evolutionists have a systematic irrational objection to any theory about decisions occuring in nature. Discussion will always turn toward this bizatre willful ignorance of evolutionists.
There is nothing irrational about dismissing a hypothesis which has absolutely no evidence to support it. Unless you can present evidence that intelligent decisions occur in nature, dismissing the claim is the only rational thing to do.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
"A joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin"

-------------------------

Evidence of Evolution
Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.



Exciting scientific discoveries continually add to the broader and deeper public knowledge of human evolution. Find out about the latest evidence in our What’s Hot in Human Origins section.

Behavior
Explore the evidence of early human behavior—from ancient footprints to stone tools and the earliest symbols and art – along with similarities and differences in the behavior of other primate species.

3D Collection
Explore our 3D collection of fossils and artifacts.

Human Fossils
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. Look into our digital 3-D collection and learn about fossil human species.

Genetics
Our genes offer evidence of how closely we are related to one another – and of our species’ connection with all other organisms.

Dating
The layers that contain fossils and archeological clues can be dated by more than a dozen techniques that use the basic principles of physics, chemistry, and Earth sciences. Some techniques can even estimate the age of the ancient teeth and bones directly. Advances in dating have made human evolution very exciting!


Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

One Species, Living Worldwide
The billions of human beings living today all belong to one species: Homo sapiens.

As in all species, there is variation among individual human beings, from size and shape to skin tone and eye color. But we are much more alike than we are different. We are, in fact, remarkably similar. The DNA of all human beings living today is 99.9% alike.

We all have roots extending back 200,000 years to the emergence of the first modern humans in Africa, and back more than 6 million years to the evolution of the earliest human species in Africa. This amazing story of adaptation and survival is written in the language of our genes, in every cell of our bodies—as well as in the fossil and behavioral evidence.

This ancient heritage is yours.

Explore the origins of modern humans in Africa about 200,000 years ago and celebrate our species’ epic journey around the world in this video: "One Species, Living Worldwide."

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/one-species-living- worldwide



New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

Homo sapiens originated in Africa 150,000 years ago and began to migrate 55,000 to 60,000 years ago. It is thought he arrived in Australia around 45,000 years before present (BP). Australia was, at the time, already colonised by homo erectus. This dispersal, from Africa to Australia through Arabia, Asia and the Malay peninsula, could have occurred at a rate of 1km per year. (Credit: Image courtesy of University Of Cambridge)

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution -- ScienceDaily



DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right

Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time




One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control life’s physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change. These days, Carroll also devotes increasing energy to telling the public about his field’s remarkable discoveries through a series of books—Endless Forms Most Beautiful, The Making of the Fittest, and the brand-new Remarkable Creatures. He spoke with DISCOVER senior editor Pamela Weintraub about what his work has taught him about Darwin, the nature of evolution, and how life really works.

It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?
It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology.
But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but they’re not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. It’s a blindness. I think this is a phase that we’ll eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I don’t know how many decades or centuries it’s going to take us.

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | DiscoverMagazine.com





They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To
Our species—and individual races—have recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures.



They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To | DiscoverMagazine.com


Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving

A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.


Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Here is another part of it


Big Five mass extinction events

Although the Cretaceous-Tertiary (or K-T) extinction event is the most well-known because it wiped out the dinosaurs, a series of other mass extinction events has occurred throughout the history of the Earth, some even more devastating than K-T. Mass extinctions are periods in Earth's history when abnormally large numbers of species die out simultaneously or within a limited time frame. The most severe occurred at the end of the Permian period when 96% of all species perished. This along with K-T are two of the Big Five mass extinctions, each of which wiped out at least half of all species. Many smaller scale mass extinctions have occurred, indeed the disappearance of many animals and plants at the hands of man in prehistoric, historic and modern times will eventually show up in the fossil record as mass extinctions. Discover more about Earth's major extinction events below.

Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction
The third largest extinction in Earth's history, the Ordovician-Silurian mass extinction had two peak dying times separated by hundreds of thousands of years. During the Ordovician, most life was in the sea, so it was sea creatures such as trilobites, brachiopods and graptolites that were drastically reduced in number.
Late Devonian mass extinction
Three quarters of all species on Earth died out in the Late Devonian mass extinction, though it may have been a series of extinctions over several million years, rather than a single event. Life in the shallow seas were the worst affected, and reefs took a hammering, not returning to their former glory until new types of coral evolved over 100 million years later.
Permian mass extinction
The Permian mass extinction has been nicknamed The Great Dying, since a staggering 96% of species died out. All life on Earth today is descended from the 4% of species that survived.
Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction
During the final 18 million years of the Triassic period, there were two or three phases of extinction whose combined effects created the Triassic-Jurassic mass extinction event. Climate change, flood basalt eruptions and an asteroid impact have all been blamed for this loss of life.
Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction
The Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction - also known as the K/T extinction - is famed for the death of the dinosaurs. However, many other organisms perished at the end of the Cretaceous including the ammonites, many flowering plants and the last of the pterosaurs.

BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events

WE know the asteriod impact was the final straw with the dinosaurs.

The demise of the dinosaurs, although Bids are their ancestors, the Dino extinction opened the way for mammals and us.

But all life on Earth now evolved from the 4% of species that survived the Permian mass extinction. Which they now know was cause by the Siberian traps a massive volcanic eruption. A crack in the Earth.

Siberian Traps

"Vast volumes of basalticlava paved over a large expanse of primeval Siberia in a flood basalt event. Today the area covered is about 2 million km2—roughly equal to western Europe in land area—and estimates of the original coverage are as high as 7 million km2. The original volume of lava is estimated to range from 1 million to 4 million km3."


Siberian Traps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Hi all

I have some question :

Why did not find man in deep past , with missing parts noise,ears,tongue ,eyes , for exemple :

human with one hand , human without fingeres , birds without wings .......etc

is not this the main concept of the evolution ?
Nope, not even close.
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
Not in that sense. It is not like building a puzzle piecemeal or anything.
So evolution is pass from creature to another new creature ?

so there is no evidence about the evolution of the creature of it self ?





Because they were functional beings.
so the creature suddenelly appears with intact function and complete body just like that !!!
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
So evolution is pass from creature to another new creature ?

so there is no evidence about the evolution of the creature of it self ?






so the creature suddenelly appears with intact function and complete body just like that !!!
You need to read a primary school text on biology, just to know what the terms mean mate. Read a biology book and inform yourself.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
We can't do calculations to predict when and where mutations WILL occur in reproducing organisms. The calculation you are referring to is a calculation working out the probability that those specific ERVs would occur in two separate DNA sequences in those exact locations. They are completely different.

That's nonsense, because then DNA evidence in court cases would be invalid. Otherwise the suspect would just say, well true that the DNA on the murder victim is the same as mine, but it could just as well have been a mutation. These things are calculated.

Also, you have still not shown or explained the mathematics that you say makes evolution unbelievable. Please do so or I will be forced to assume that no such formula exists and that you were merely making it up.

Actually you have to provide mathematics that it does work out. Any theory needs to be mathematically solved.

The mathematics is simply that every position is either CATG, added with some maths about increasing and decreasing positions. And then you get some power to 10 nonsense number, which you then have to calculate which share of them would actually produce anything let alone an organism.

There is nothing irrational about dismissing a hypothesis which has absolutely no evidence to support it. Unless you can present evidence that intelligent decisions occur in nature, dismissing the claim is the only rational thing to do.

That is just prejudice, many people hate freedom, and these people then go on to do science explaining everything in terms of it being forced. I can see that it is prejudice because they do not even get the hypothesis of how choosing works right. Specifically they have a problem with agency, that this categorically falls outside of science. Which means they have a problem with leaving what is good and evil outside of science, which makes them the anti-thesis of a scientist, social darwinists, because only by making agency a matter of opinion can good and evil be a matter of opinion. You cannot begin to look at evidence for how things are chosen when you get the hypothesis about how choosing works wrong.

Reasonably there is plenty of evidence that things are chosen, simply because the mathematics would turn out better is already good evidence.
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
You need to read a primary school text on biology, just to know what the terms mean mate. Read a biology book and inform yourself.

I don't think in primary school , that we will found how the creatures creat it self or how a creature evolute it's self , the biology explain how it's works/run and linked to each other .
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
Well, no. It isn't. We know enough of how lifeforms evolved to tell confidently that it did not happen that way.
you said "We know enough" !!!!
I disagree , IF there is enough in science , so there is no developpement .

it's just thoeries who tell about lifeforms , there is no waranty evidence .


It is? Why? How?


Evolution is (usually) gradual, but not by incomplete, inviable lifeforms. Quite on the contrary, each and every transitional form was and must have been succesfull in its own terms.
because of fans of evolution , always take such exemple , that body of creature changed in timeline .





It seems to me that you are expecting too much of that comparison, so much so that it broke up.
why you reject the evolution of creation by it self , it's not that what already happaned ?
let's compare evolution of plane to human ,
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
That's nonsense, because then DNA evidence in court cases would be invalid. Otherwise the suspect would just say, well true that the DNA on the murder victim is the same as mine, but it could just as well have been a mutation. These things are calculated.
*facepalm*

Did you read what I wrote? I said we cannot PREDICT when and where mutations will occur.

There is no "calculation" required for recognizing familiarity between two DNA sequences. The point is that we cannot PREDICT where mutations will occur BEFORE they have occurred. Once again you are just demonstrating how extremely confused you are.

Actually you have to provide mathematics that it does work out. Any theory needs to be mathematically solved.
Garbage. Please show how germ theory has been "mathematically solved".

The mathematics is simply that every position is either CATG, added with some maths about increasing and decreasing positions. And then you get some power to 10 nonsense number, which you then have to calculate which share of them would actually produce anything let alone an organism.
Yet more garbage that makes no sense. Present your evidence or back down from the claim.

That is just prejudice,
No it is not. Is it "prejudiced" to not believe in alchemy, or leprechauns, or spotaneous generation? No, of course not. We don't believe these things because there is no reason to believe them - and it's exactly the same with intelligent design. There is no good, rational, scientific basis for believing that life is designed or that evolution is guided in any way.

many people hate freedom, and these people then go on to do science explaining everything in terms of it being forced. I can see that it is prejudice because they do not even get the hypothesis of how choosing works right.
This also makes no sense. Freedom has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Specifically they have a problem with agency, that this categorically falls outside of science. Which means they have a problem with leaving what is good and evil outside of science, which makes them the anti-thesis of a scientist, social darwinists, because only by making agency a matter of opinion can good and evil be a matter of opinion. You cannot begin to look at evidence for how things are chosen when you get the hypothesis about how choosing works wrong.
Yet more total nonsense. Not only do you clearly not understand science, you clearly have no real understanding of what your opinions or beliefs even are. If you did, your argument wouldn't make such little sense.

Reasonably there is plenty of evidence that things are chosen, simply because the mathematics would turn out better is already good evidence.
Again, this sentence is incomprehensible. What does "mathematics would turn out better" even mean? What evidence is there that "things are chosen"?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
you said "We know enough" !!!!
I disagree , IF there is enough in science , so there is no developpement .
He didn't say "we know enough to stop investigating", he said "we know enough to know that evolution did not occur in the way you are suggesting it might have". It's like saying:

"We know enough about how the bullet entered the skull to conclude that the individual was not killed by measles."

it's just thoeries who tell about lifeforms , there is no waranty evidence .
But you can't just ignore the evidence and invent a new way for the process to work in defiance of everything we already know about how the process works. What you're saying is akin to "Why can't we build a working bridge out of crackers?"

because of fans of evolution , always take such exemple , that body of creature changed in timeline .
Yes. That is correct. Now why do you think that means that evolution happened the way you think it did. We've already explained how your suggestions are inaccurate.
 
Top