Why evolution did not comes like this ?

[leibowde84]

but dinosaurs were extincted .

Can you explain your problem with this a bit more? I'm having a hard time seeing why the extinctions of the dinosaurs would create an issue with dinosaurs as a species evolving into birds. They went extinct as a species. Those that were able to change or "evolve" slowly became what we now know as birds. But, this process took millions of years.

 

[Godobeyer]

If you go back far enough to when amphibious creatures came out of the water, I guess you might be right. But those ancestors wouldn't be "human" in any discernible way.

Many members reject this point , and they said evolution did not come like this .

 

[leibowde84]

Many members reject this point , and they said evolution did not come like this .

Can you explain this please. I've never heard anyone disagree with this aspect of evolution. it has been shown that life started under water. So how would we have gotten on land?

 

[leibowde84]

Many members reject this point , and they said evolution did not come like this .

I guess people can think whatever they want, but this is what the theory of evolution holds. Life began near heat vents under the ocean. Eventually these lifeforms were able to evolve enough to move on to dry land. Evolution can be more easily understood with plats as well. You have to understand that 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Extinction, however, does not mean that every creature in a group dies. It merely means that the species has changed (evolved) in such a way that it is no longer substantially similar to the species it was once identified as.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I guess people can think whatever they want, but this is what the theory of evolution holds. Life began near heat vents under the ocean. Eventually these lifeforms were able to evolve enough to move on to dry land. Evolution can be more easily understood with plats as well. You have to understand that 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Extinction, however, does not mean that every creature in a group dies. It merely means that the species has changed (evolved) in such a way that it is no longer substantially similar to the species it was once identified as.

And creationism holds:

- that freedom is real and relevant in the universe
- that the origins of any thing can solely be accurately described in terms of the decisions by which it came to be.
- that the question what the agency of any decision is, what it is that makes a particular decision turn out the way it does, is categorically a matter of opinion, excluding any facts whatsoever about the issue. Thus subjectivity, expression of emotions, having an opinion, is logically valid, and distinct from matters of fact.

- there is a DNA world in which there is a representation of the adult organism in full 3 dimensions
- that an organism develops to adulthood, guided by this representation of the adult organism in the DNA world
- that there are representations of the environment in the DNA world besides the adult organism
- that the DNA world can in principle carry representations of anything, like we can put a representation of a car in DNA, however it cannot be grown
- that fully functional adult organisms can be chosen in this DNA world
- that at the start of creation starting from nothing whatsoever, all possibilities are equally likely to be chosen, neither complex is less likely than simple
- that after the first decisions at the start, next decisions combine with previous decisions, making possibilities around what has already been chosen more likely

See, that is how real science proceeds. How useful practical knowledge is built up in a way that acknowledges the humanity of the scientist.

 

[leibowde84]

And creationism holds:

- that freedom is real and relevant in the universe
- that the origins of any thing can solely be accurately described in terms of the decisions by which it came to be.
- that the question what the agency of any decision is, what it is that makes a particular decision turn out the way it does, is categorically a matter of opinion, excluding any facts whatsoever about the issue. Thus subjectivity, expression of emotions, having an opinion, is logically valid, and distinct from matters of fact.

- there is a DNA world in which there is a representation of the adult organism in full 3 dimensions
- that an organism develops to adulthood, guided by this representation of the adult organism in the DNA world
- that there are representations of the environment in the DNA world besides the adult organism
- that the DNA world can in principle carry representations of anything, like we can put a representation of a car in DNA, however it cannot be grown
- that fully functional adult organisms can be chosen in this DNA world
- that at the start of creation starting from nothing whatsoever, all possibilities are equally likely to be chosen, neither complex is less likely than simple
- that after the first decisions at the start, next decisions combine with previous decisions, making possibilities around what has already been chosen more likely
See, that is how real science proceeds. How useful practical knowledge is built up in a way that acknowledges the humanity of the scientist.

I'm confused. What is your argument?

 

[Etritonakin]

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sweet.

I believe it is important for all to know what is known, and how it relates.

Even if one believes God is the creator or designer, it is not logical to assume that there was no evolution of design.
To think that the earth, man, animals and plants were instantaneously created without forethought, design, research, development, etc., is unreasonable
(This is not to say that instantaneous creation or replication is not possible after initial design and after the means of production is in place).
It is written that the things of God are apparent in what was made, so it is sad that many refuse to consider a matter based on the assumed meaning of a very few words.

If one does not believe in God, then one must still accept that "evolution" is a far more capable designer than man -yet without intent -and is our instructor in design.
By considering and reverse-engineering what it is thought to have produced without intent (including our own ability to design and create) we can then do similar and eventually different and greater things.

It is usually the religious that are accused of assuming things without evidence -and sometimes rightly so -but it is also true that science assumes some things are possibly true, based on a combination of evidence and lack of evidence, in order to move forward (temporarily, for the sake of argument/investigation)
It seems that some thing should be true based on what is known -then it is tested -and, correct or incorrect, much more becomes known.

The religious would do well to take the same approach.
Even the bible teaches that mankind should prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good.

Many have beliefs, but not a firm foundation of investigation and proof -and therefore their faith is not strong. Some errantly believe that it is against faith to question, but the opposite is true.

 

[Parsimony]

In response to the OP:

Short answer: evolution doesn't work that way.

Longer answer: evolution doesn't create new traits in a vacuum. One of the most important concepts in evolution is that of "derived traits" (that is, new traits are based on previously existing traits). Let's use eyes as an example. Evolution does not predict that eyes suddenly showed up, fully-formed, out of nowhere. Evolution predicts that complex eyes are derived from simpler eyes. Those simpler eyes, in turn, are derived from eye spots which cannot resolve images but can detect the presence of light. So to say that evolution predicts ancient man to have "half an eye" or something similar would be a straw-man argument.

 

[leibowde84]

In response to the OP:

Short answer: evolution doesn't work that way.

Longer answer: evolution doesn't create new traits in a vacuum. One of the most important concepts in evolution is that of "derived traits" (that is, new traits are based on previously existing traits). Let's use eyes as an example. Evolution does not predict that eyes suddenly showed up, fully-formed, out of nowhere. Evolution predicts that complex eyes are derived from simpler eyes. Those simpler eyes, in turn, are derived from eye spots which cannot resolve images but can detect the presence of light. So to say that evolution predicts ancient man to have "half an eye" or something similar would be a straw-man argument.

BAM!!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Godobeyer, Your question expresses a profound truth. The fossil record has consistently illustrated that the theory of evolution is invalid. Despite a few disproven claims, no fossil of any creature in transition from one species to another has ever been found. Even in the very oldest layers of strata, fossils of plants and animals are of creatures that first appeared on earth in their distinct, specialized forms.

Here you go.....

 

[outhouse]

Many members reject this point , and they said evolution did not come like this .

People can argue a flat earth.


YOU will have the same amount of success.

 

[outhouse]

I'm confused. What is your argument?

He has none.

he is awkwardly trying to Proselytize his mythology.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Authoritarian huffing and puffing, which evolutionists are so good at. You still have to calculate the probability of another human being having the same sequence. That is the point, that it is calculated, where the other evolutionist said calculations on mutations are impossible.

I understand that mutations can be calculated, and that you are wrong to say it cannot.

Then please present the formula by which you can accurately predict when and where mutations will occur.

 

[leibowde84]

Then please present the formula by which you can accurately predict when and where mutations will occur.

What would "calculating mutations" even refer to? They happen randomly, and are caused by mistakes made when RNA duplicates DNA. So, I can't figure out what you are even asking about.

 

[jonathan180iq]

What would "calculating mutations" even refer to? They happen randomly, and are caused by mistakes made when RNA duplicates DNA. So, I can't figure out what you are even asking about.

PSST...He doesn't know either. Don't bother him with your logic.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What would "calculating mutations" even refer to? They happen randomly, and are caused by mistakes made when RNA duplicates DNA. So, I can't figure out what you are even asking about.

....if you can't calculate the chance of mutations.....then the suspect says to the judge you can't calculate the chance that somebody else has the same DNA as me...somebody else could have mutations exactly same as me...therefore you cannot exclude the possibility somebody else has the same DNA as me... therefore the evidence is inconclusive..and the suspect is let go

All evolutionists I ever talked to cannot reason. They are all political party ideologues repeating the standard party line.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Sweet.

I believe it is important for all to know what is known, and how it relates.

Even if one believes God is the creator or designer, it is not logical to assume that there was no evolution of design.
To think that the earth, man, animals and plants were instantaneously created without forethought, design, research, development, etc., is unreasonable
(This is not to say that instantaneous creation or replication is not possible after initial design and after the means of production is in place).
It is written that the things of God are apparent in what was made, so it is sad that many refuse to consider a matter based on the assumed meaning of a very few words.

If one does not believe in God, then one must still accept that "evolution" is a far more capable designer than man -yet without intent -and is our instructor in design.
By considering and reverse-engineering what it is thought to have produced without intent (including our own ability to design and create) we can then do similar and eventually different and greater things.

It is usually the religious that are accused of assuming things without evidence -and sometimes rightly so -but it is also true that science assumes some things are possibly true, based on a combination of evidence and lack of evidence, in order to move forward (temporarily, for the sake of argument/investigation)
It seems that some thing should be true based on what is known -then it is tested -and, correct or incorrect, much more becomes known.

The religious would do well to take the same approach.
Even the bible teaches that mankind should prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good.

Many have beliefs, but not a firm foundation of investigation and proof -and therefore their faith is not strong. Some errantly believe that it is against faith to question, but the opposite is true.

It really is just a tirade against accepting freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

 

[columbus]

It really is just a tirade against accepting freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

Why do you think freedom is more real than other abstract concepts like science? Or more relevant to the human situation?

You keep asserting that it is, but you never say why.

Tom

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you think freedom is more real than other abstract concepts like science? Or more relevant to the human situation?

You keep asserting that it is, but you never say why.

Tom

To my mind you just announce yourself as ridiculously evil by denying freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

 

[leibowde84]

....if you can't calculate the chance of mutations.....then the suspect says to the judge you can't calculate the chance that somebody else has the same DNA as me...somebody else could have mutations exactly same as me...therefore you cannot exclude the possibility somebody else has the same DNA as me... therefore the evidence is inconclusive..and the suspect is let go

All evolutionists I ever talked to cannot reason. They are all political party ideologues repeating the standard party line.

Oh, you are asking about the chance that two DNA mutations would be exactly the same? Well, that would depend on many factors.

Geneticists seem to agree that the chances of two people having the same DNA would be 1 in 10^9 (1 in 1 billion or .0000000001%), excluding identical (monozygotic) twins: DNA Fingerprinting This article goes into the details: DNA profiling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, just to be clear, this in no way shows the probability of mutation. A mutation is merely a difference between the DNA of the parents and the DNA of the child. Once it becomes part of a species, it is no longer a mutation, and is now a trait.

So, how do you think this causes an issue with the plausibility of evolution? What specifically are you having a problem with?