First Prev
of 21
Next Last
JPr

Maiden, NC

#1 Feb 18, 2009
I'm new here, but I want to try and discuss evolution and creationism. If someone will start with something where we can built from?
I would say how the universe began, but if there is some other topic we can start from then just say it.
JPr

Maiden, NC

#2 Feb 18, 2009
Actually, I'm going to put my thoughts first. Sorry for bad english, not like if is my first language but anyways.

I don't believe in evolution for different reasons.

1. There is no explanation in "Evolution" on how life began.

2. Since the universe is expanding is believed that it all began with an explosion; however, if it did, then what caused it?

3. So let's say that whatever happened, the big bang came out of nothing. How then all the stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, worms etc got created?(Luck?)

4.So, let's narrow it down to earth. I think is 10,000,000,000,000 the possibility of earth being in this exact place to substain life. That's a huge number isn't it?

5. Now multiply that number times the thousand of different species and things on the planet.

6. How did the atmosphere, and the whole system in which the earth works come to being?

7. Earth even "recycles" itslef. Look at the process of rain. And also how if a volcano explodes all the smoke and rest of the explosions equalizes around the earth.

8. So how did the first animal came to being? Did the heart evolved first, then the blood, the arms, liver, kidney whatever...? Would not they all had to appeared at the same time for it to live?

9. Not just that, but then consider that a female had to be evolved. The two where so lucky that somehow one had half and the other one had half to make a baby.

10. Well, these are just my common sense thoughts. If you want to laugh then do it, but I would love to hear some explanations.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#3 Feb 18, 2009
I'll tackle one.
JPr wrote:
1. There is no explanation in "Evolution" on how life began.
Why does it have to?

As an example: you are sitting at the side of a railroad track as a train passes by.

You can calculate how fast it is going.

You can count how many cars there are.

You can calculate how many wheels the train had by knowing how many cars there were and how many wheels each car has, without actually counting, or even seeing, each wheel.

You can describe what color it is and record various visual details about the train.

You can record the sound it makes.

Is any of this data and information INVALID if you do not know where the train came from?

Just because science may not know how life STARTED does NOT mean that all of the evidence collected about everything that happened AFTER is invalid.

Level 1

Since: Oct 08

Wellington

#4 Feb 18, 2009
>>1. There is no explanation in "Evolution" on how life began.<<
There doesn't need to be. The theory of evolution is about evolution. That's why it's called the theory of evolution. Quite often the name of a scientific theory has some relationship to what the theory is about. Funny, that.

The theory of evolution is about the natural processes that result in changes within populations over time.

>>2. Since the universe is expanding is believed that it all began with an explosion; however, if it did, then what caused it?<<
This also has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is biology, the Big Bang is cosmology. Different fields.

It is not yet known what caused the Big Bang to occur.

>>3. So let's say that whatever happened, the big bang came out of nothing. How then all the stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, worms etc got created?(Luck?)<<
The known laws of physics can answer that one nicely. Let's wait for a physicist, or someone who knows some physics, to come along. I'd love to help, but physics makes my brain bleed.

>>4.So, let's narrow it down to earth. I think is 10,000,000,000,000 the possibility of earth being in this exact place to substain life. That's a huge number isn't it?<<
Yes, it is a rather large number. I wish I could see that number when I check my bank balance.

>>5. Now multiply that number times the thousand of different species and things on the planet.<<
That's a very big number.

>>6. How did the atmosphere, and the whole system in which the earth works come to being?<<
Earth's gravity is strong enough to trap atmospheric gases.

>>7. Earth even "recycles" itslef. Look at the process of rain. And also how if a volcano explodes all the smoke and rest of the explosions equalizes around the earth.<<
Huh?

>>8. So how did the first animal came to being? Did the heart evolved first, then the blood, the arms, liver, kidney whatever...? Would not they all had to appeared at the same time for it to live?<<
This is very well documented indeed, but would take more than a few sentences to answer. I can point you in the direction of a few good sources if you like.

>>9. Not just that, but then consider that a female had to be evolved. The two where so lucky that somehow one had half and the other one had half to make a baby.<<
The evolution of sexual reproduction is also very well documented.

>>10. Well, these are just my common sense thoughts. If you want to laugh then do it, but I would love to hear some explanations. <<
Yeah, cheers, most of it was pretty funny.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#5 Feb 18, 2009
JPr wrote:
3. So let's say that whatever happened, the big bang came out of nothing. How then all the stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, worms etc got created?(Luck?)
This is cosmology, astronomy and astrophysics. It really has NOTHING to do with the biological Theory of Evolution.

The simple answer to this question would be gravity.

There really is little or no debate about how interstellar structures are formed. A basic astronomy book in your local library should give you all the information you would need, but again this has NOTHING to do with evolution.
JPr

Maiden, NC

#6 Feb 18, 2009
The problem is that what the data that scientist have found AFTER does not really prove evolution in any way.(The missing links). We might "know" that certain animals existed at a certain time, but that does not prove evolution either. And "if" everything evolve there should be an answer on HOW everything evolved. Meaning that we would have to go back to the source (the beginning).

This might be a bad example but i can't think straight since is kinda late.

But, I mean let take for example a gallon of milk. It starts where they fill the gallon, then they send it to the distributor, then they send it to the grocery store, and then I buy it and put it in my refrigerator.(All these steps are "evolution".) Then, I want to prove to my brother how the milk got to the refrigerator by just blandly stating that the milk is in the refrigerator. Is like stating a fact without explanation or reason.(Don't know if you get what I'm trying to say.) If you don't then just reply and I will try to explain myself better.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#7 Feb 18, 2009
JPr wrote:
Actually, I'm going to put my thoughts first. Sorry for bad english, not like if is my first language but anyways.
I don't believe in evolution for different reasons.
1. There is no explanation in "Evolution" on how life began.
Well, neither does the theory of gravity. Do you have a problem with it.

The theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of life. This is a creationist straw man. ToE deal solely with the change of life over time.
JPr wrote:
2. Since the universe is expanding is believed that it all began with an explosion; however, if it did, then what caused it?
First, this is the theory of the Big Bang, not the theory of evolution. Again, a creationist straw man argument.

Secondly, what is wrong with saying, "We don't know yet. We are studying it."?

Is it better to make up answers that are wrong?
JPr wrote:
3. So let's say that whatever happened, the big bang came out of nothing. How then all the stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, worms etc got created?(Luck?)
By following the rules the universe works by, which are modeled by the theories of physics.

Read up on the theories of how galaxies and solar systems came to be. Gravity is a powerful force.

And you still dealing with a straw man argument as far as ToE is concerned. ToE says nothing about the formation of matter, stars or planets.
JPr wrote:
4.So, let's narrow it down to earth. I think is 10,000,000,000,000 the possibility of earth being in this exact place to substain life. That's a huge number isn't it?
Well, in that case, there may well be 10,000,000,000 planets with life. There are about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0 stars in the visible universe. The universe is a very big place.

On top of this, you are giving a figure for which you have no way of calculating. It is nothing but a pessimistic guess on your part.

continued...

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#8 Feb 18, 2009
JPr wrote:
5. Now multiply that number times the thousand of different species and things on the planet.
Why?
JPr wrote:
6. How did the atmosphere, and the whole system in which the earth works come to being?
Through life. The early atmosphere was nothing like what we have today. Free oxygen is a sign of life, and requires life to exist.

Oxygen is very reactive. If life were not replenishing it, it would quickly disappear.

Early life was anaerobic. It did not use oxygen. Oxygen was actually poisonous to it. Then some bacteria developed that produced oxygen to poison its competitors. As free oxygen increased, other bacteria developed that could metabolize it.
JPr wrote:
7. Earth even "recycles" itslef. Look at the process of rain. And also how if a volcano explodes all the smoke and rest of the explosions equalizes around the earth.
So? How does this disprove ToE?
JPr wrote:
8. So how did the first animal came to being? Did the heart evolved first, then the blood, the arms, liver, kidney whatever...? Would not they all had to appeared at the same time for it to live?
Just take a look at the animals that are around today. We see creatures that are similar to those at various stages in our past.

No, they do not have to all come into existence at once, nor do they have to come into existence fully formed.
JPr wrote:
9. Not just that, but then consider that a female had to be evolved. The two where so lucky that somehow one had half and the other one had half to make a baby?
Again, look at other animals. Start with something like a hydra. Asexual budding as well as bisexual reproduction (producing both male and female germ cells). Follow this to something like an earthworm, which is fully bisexual (no budding) to others where the male and female roles separate.
JPr wrote:
10. Well, these are just my common sense thoughts. If you want to laugh then do it, but I would love to hear some explanations.
"Common sense", something that is often neither common nor sense.

Common sense is a terrible way to try and do science. Common sense is too often tainted by our personal biases. Science is bases on repeatable evidence, an attempt to eliminate bias.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#9 Feb 18, 2009
JPr -

You are clearly operating on a shortage of information. Here are some very good books that can explain far more than we can on Topix...

Zimmer - Evolution: Triumph of an Idea

Coyne - Why Evolution is True

Shubin - Your Inner Fish

Prothero - Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters

Dawkins - The Ancestors Tale

Or anything else by Dawkins or Gould.
JPr

Maiden, NC

#10 Feb 18, 2009
"No, they do not have to all come into existence at once, nor do they have to come into existence fully formed."

Enlighten me if I'm wrong. It has been long since I have discussed evolution and all that.

For what I understand evolution is adding one thing at a time isn't it? I mean, what about (forgot the name) one organism that if all it's parts were not there at the same time the organisms would die?

And just wondering... I mean, I know by what you guys have told me that evolution doesn't deal with the beginning. But at least, how did the first "animal" came to be, and how it evolved into all the different animal that we see today. Even though, there should be less animal now than what they were "millions" of years ago. Which, to me doesn't make sense if they are adapting and evolving.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#11 Feb 18, 2009
JPr wrote:
The problem is that what the data that scientist have found AFTER does not really prove evolution in any way.(The missing links). We might "know" that certain animals existed at a certain time, but that does not prove evolution either. And "if" everything evolve there should be an answer on HOW everything evolved. Meaning that we would have to go back to the source (the beginning).
This might be a bad example but i can't think straight since is kinda late.
But, I mean let take for example a gallon of milk. It starts where they fill the gallon, then they send it to the distributor, then they send it to the grocery store, and then I buy it and put it in my refrigerator.(All these steps are "evolution".) Then, I want to prove to my brother how the milk got to the refrigerator by just blandly stating that the milk is in the refrigerator. Is like stating a fact without explanation or reason.(Don't know if you get what I'm trying to say.) If you don't then just reply and I will try to explain myself better.
First of all, "missing links" is not a term used by evolutionary biologist.

Secondly, then why is it that every new fossil found, every discovery in geology, every discovery in genetics FITS the theory of evolution?

It is not just that the past data fits, it is that every discovery made since fits.

You are talking as if this evolution idea was just cobbled together yesterday. It wasn't. It had been bouncing around for a couple of thousand years (a Greek philosopher first proposed the concept), and was pretty well accepted by European scientists by 1800. But no one until Darwin and Wallace had come up with a mechanism that explained what was happening.

And in the 150 years since Darwin published, all we have discovered supports his thesis. That is not just a coincidence.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#12 Feb 18, 2009
JPr wrote:
8. So how did the first animal came to being? Did the heart evolved first, then the blood, the arms, liver, kidney whatever...? Would not they all had to appeared at the same time for it to live?
Why? There are MANY organisms that don't have any number of the items you have listed.

Amoeba don't have a heart,

sponges don't have blood,

worms don't have arms and they don't have a liver or kidneys,

insects do kind of have a heart but they also don't have a liver or kidneys and they don't have lungs and they don't have arms but they do have six legs (unless you believe in a literal and inerrant Bible which says they have four)

some fish don't have lungs but some do,

most fish don't have arms but some have modified fins that they can walk on dry land with and some have little stumpy appendages that almost look like arms,

some amphibians have gills like fish but some only have them when they are really young,

In other words, an organism does NOT need to be as complex as a human is to be alive. It does NOT require that those biological features "all had to appeared at the same time" for it to be a successful species.
JPr

Maiden, NC

#13 Feb 18, 2009
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, "missing links" is not a term used by evolutionary biologist.
Secondly, then why is it that every new fossil found, every discovery in geology, every discovery in genetics FITS the theory of evolution?
It is not just that the past data fits, it is that every discovery made since fits.
You are talking as if this evolution idea was just cobbled together yesterday. It wasn't. It had been bouncing around for a couple of thousand years (a Greek philosopher first proposed the concept), and was pretty well accepted by European scientists by 1800. But no one until Darwin and Wallace had come up with a mechanism that explained what was happening.
And in the 150 years since Darwin published, all we have discovered supports his thesis. That is not just a coincidence.
I don't believe EVERY fossil FITS perfectly with the evolution theory. I can't look them up right now (too lazy). But, not every fossil FITS with the theory of evolution. Yes, maybe evolutionist don't use the term of missing links, but doesn't mean that there is none missing links that have been found.(At least you know what i mean by missing links.) And I don't believe evolution was just done like crazy. I believe, and is true that what Darwin observed were micro evolutions. Not actual evolutions how they are defined now.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#14 Feb 18, 2009
I will answer the question that is the title of this topic: Evolution is "right" because it is a description if reality. The only arbiter for science is whether the theory describes reality, whether it can make predictions that can be tested for and whether we can think up of ways to disprove it if it were not so and then test for those. Evolution has withstood the attempts of its naysayers for at least 150 years without a single telling blow being landed by its oponents. Every argument that hs been used against evolution, including all hte ones you have posited are drawn from the catalogue of logical fallacies: such things as straw man arguments, non-sequitur, false dichotomy, argument from personal incredulity, appeal to authority thewhole gammit of logically false argument.

If you don't want to get hammered here I really do think you need to go and learn a bit about what you're arguing about. Learn some science. Understand why the usual creationist arguments don't cut the ice (not to mention that we've heard them all before, ad nauseum). If you simply follow the usual reationist/fundamentalist path you will of course ignore everything that anyone says that disagrees with your highly uninformed opinion and yet another long string of pointless posts will ensue as you try vainly to win an argument you cannot even understand. You will not notice when you are comprehensively owned by your opponents and you will end up being a laughing stock. But don't let me dissuade you, I'm sure Pastor Bob has filled your head with a whole lot of words you don't understand and told you that they disprove evolution. I can't wait until you try the second law of thermodynamics one, that's always worth a chuckle.
JPr

Maiden, NC

#15 Feb 18, 2009
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? There are MANY organisms that don't have any number of the items you have listed.
Amoeba don't have a heart,
sponges don't have blood,
worms don't have arms and they don't have a liver or kidneys,
insects do kind of have a heart but they also don't have a liver or kidneys and they don't have lungs and they don't have arms but they do have six legs (unless you believe in a literal and inerrant Bible which says they have four)
some fish don't have lungs but some do,
most fish don't have arms but some have modified fins that they can walk on dry land with and some have little stumpy appendages that almost look like arms,
some amphibians have gills like fish but some only have them when they are really young,
In other words, an organism does NOT need to be as complex as a human is to be alive. It does NOT require that those biological features "all had to appeared at the same time" for it to be a successful species.
It was just a mere example. However, that doesn't distract from the fact that animals as complex as human "had" to everything appeared at the same time to live.
JPr

Maiden, NC

#16 Feb 18, 2009
Bluenose wrote:
I will answer the question that is the title of this topic: Evolution is "right" because it is a description if reality. The only arbiter for science is whether the theory describes reality, whether it can make predictions that can be tested for and whether we can think up of ways to disprove it if it were not so and then test for those. Evolution has withstood the attempts of its naysayers for at least 150 years without a single telling blow being landed by its oponents. Every argument that hs been used against evolution, including all hte ones you have posited are drawn from the catalogue of logical fallacies: such things as straw man arguments, non-sequitur, false dichotomy, argument from personal incredulity, appeal to authority thewhole gammit of logically false argument.
If you don't want to get hammered here I really do think you need to go and learn a bit about what you're arguing about. Learn some science. Understand why the usual creationist arguments don't cut the ice (not to mention that we've heard them all before, ad nauseum). If you simply follow the usual reationist/fundamentalist path you will of course ignore everything that anyone says that disagrees with your highly uninformed opinion and yet another long string of pointless posts will ensue as you try vainly to win an argument you cannot even understand. You will not notice when you are comprehensively owned by your opponents and you will end up being a laughing stock. But don't let me dissuade you, I'm sure Pastor Bob has filled your head with a whole lot of words you don't understand and told you that they disprove evolution. I can't wait until you try the second law of thermodynamics one, that's always worth a chuckle.
I don't go to any pastor Bob. And, I'm different in the sense that I just want to learn. I want to take what you guys say and look for the answers. I don't mind being the laugh of everyone in the forums.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#17 Feb 18, 2009
JPr wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe EVERY fossil FITS perfectly with the evolution theory. I can't look them up right now (too lazy). But, not every fossil FITS with the theory of evolution. Yes, maybe evolutionist don't use the term of missing links, but doesn't mean that there is none missing links that have been found.(At least you know what i mean by missing links.) And I don't believe evolution was just done like crazy. I believe, and is true that what Darwin observed were micro evolutions. Not actual evolutions how they are defined now.
"Microevolution" is merely a term that creationists co-opted because they could no longer argue that species were perfectly static - which was the view they held for a very long time. Eventually, the evidence for evolution was SO vast even they could not ignore it completely, and so they finally said that change could happen, but only a little change.

So tell me, JPr, what keeps a little change from becoming a little more change from becoming lots more change? Can you give me a mechanism? Any evidence for said mechanism?

Evolution deals with a LOT of time, nearly 4 billion years since the oldest known fossils. A little change here, a little change there, and lots of little changes over a lot of time, and eventually you have some major differences between what you started with and what you ended with.

The fossils indicate you are wrong, but aren't conclusive. The genetics SAY you are wrong, and are quite conclusive. If you want real evidence of evolution, look at the genetic history written in our DNA.

As for fossils that don't fit evolution...I am afraid I am going to require some sources on that. I will withhold judgment for now, but I think it likely you have been misinformed. I've studied this quite a bit in the last several years, and I have heard of no such fossils.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#18 Feb 18, 2009
JPr wrote:
The problem is that what the data that scientist have found AFTER does not really prove evolution in any way.(The missing links).
Sure it does. They are called transitional fossils and there are thousand of them.

Heck, there are transitional species alive today that are great example of how animals can adapt to alien environments.

Mudskippers - fish on dry land

Penguins -birds fully adapted to an aquatic life style

Seals - mammals caught between the ocean and dry land

Manatees - mammals fully adapted to an aquatic life style but not as perfected as the porpoises and whales

Ostriches - birds fully adapted for a terrestrian life style

Flying squirrels - mammals not quite flying but doing the next best thing

Gliding reptiles - ditto for reptiles

Flying fish - ditto for fish

The argument that there are NO transitional fossils is just silly. They DO exist and they have corresponding organisms still alive today.

The evolution of whales (which evolution deniers always claim is mere speculation and non existent) can be easily imagined using LIVING mammals in various stages of aquatic adaption:

weasel, otter, sea otter, sea lion, seal, elephant seal, manatee, whale.

If we can have animals in differing stages of adaption to an aquatic life style today, then why CAN'T we have them in the distant past.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#19 Feb 18, 2009
JPr wrote:
<quoted text>
It was just a mere example. However, that doesn't distract from the fact that animals as complex as human "had" to everything appeared at the same time to live.
This is called the "sharpshooter" fallacy. It comes from the idea that a shooter fires a shot, then goes and draws a bull's eye around it.

You are arguing that we had to be the end result. In other words, you are drawing a circle around us after the fact. The fact is, humans did not have to evolve. Intelligence did not have to evolve. Nor did intelligence have to have human form.

It is just the way it turned out.(I'm not complaining. I like being human. But I don't consider myself to be the end-all and be-all of the universe.)

Humans just happened. We are one of the many, many successful solutions to a mammal living on a savanna.
JPr

Maiden, NC

#20 Feb 18, 2009
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
"Microevolution" is merely a term that creationists co-opted because they could no longer argue that species were perfectly static - which was the view they held for a very long time. Eventually, the evidence for evolution was SO vast even they could not ignore it completely, and so they finally said that change could happen, but only a little change.
So tell me, JPr, what keeps a little change from becoming a little more change from becoming lots more change? Can you give me a mechanism? Any evidence for said mechanism?
Evolution deals with a LOT of time, nearly 4 billion years since the oldest known fossils. A little change here, a little change there, and lots of little changes over a lot of time, and eventually you have some major differences between what you started with and what you ended with.
The fossils indicate you are wrong, but aren't conclusive. The genetics SAY you are wrong, and are quite conclusive. If you want real evidence of evolution, look at the genetic history written in our DNA.
As for fossils that don't fit evolution...I am afraid I am going to require some sources on that. I will withhold judgment for now, but I think it likely you have been misinformed. I've studied this quite a bit in the last several years, and I have heard of no such fossils.
Well, I didn't know that part of micro-evolution existing cause... I just taught of micro as small evolution but anyways.

Dar... that is the problem. Darwin or for that matter nobody has seen macro evolution. You might ask well what restrains micro evolution from becoming macro. Well, for me a couple of things that in my mind.

I don' think because there is micro evolution it means that macro also exist. For example. Take that person who can stay the longest under water. She adapted her body to be able to stay for a certain amount of time under the water without breathing.(Or is it going the deepest down on the ocean)*Doesn't really matter. Well, let's say that that person had a kid.(Of course she had to die.) The kid wouldn't have the same capabilities that his mom had for staying for such a long time underwater. But, let's say that that kid adapts himself too. And then his kid, and then the kids of the kids. Can we really say that a generation after the baby of that person would be any different from any other baby?

And for another reason. For evolution to happen there has to be a really long time right? Going back to how the animals where formed. The heart etc... all the things that I mentioned before.

There was another thing about what Darwin observe that got me thinking when I read about it. But I totally forgot! I should look that up again

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 21
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min Dogen 131,937
How would creationists explain... 9 min Dogen 295
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) 12 min Wally West 3
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 6 hr The Dude 466
Science News (Sep '13) 6 hr positronium 2,941
What you should know about Tuesday's vote on ev... (Feb '08) 20 hr IAMIOOWAN 516
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Wed Brian_G 13,614
More from around the web