Comments
21 - 40 of 406 Comments Last updated Mar 21, 2014
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
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 would ONLY be a problem if humans just popped out of thin air in their present state of complexity.

But humans didn't, so again, why?

Why can't they start out as something simple and then evolve more complexity as the species evolves?

If, on the other hand, humans evolved from something incrementally simpler
... which in turn evolved from something incrementally simpler
... which in turn evolved from something incrementally simpler
... which in turn evolved from something incrementally simpler
... which in turn evolved from something incrementally simpler
... which in turn evolved from something incrementally simpler
... which in turn evolved from something incrementally simpler
... which in turn evolved from something incrementally simpler
... which in turn evolved from something incrementally simpler
... which in turn evolved from something incrementally simpler
... which in turn evolved from something incrementally simpler
... which in turn evolved from something incrementally simpler
... which in turn evolved from something incrementally simpler
... which in turn evolved from something incrementally simpler
... going back billions of years, then all of the complexity evident in humans today may not have been present in our evolutionary ancestors.

Google "earthworm anatomy" for an example of how simple a heart can be.

Google "lung evolution in fish" so see how lungs (and swim bladders) evolved out of an outgrowth of the gastrointestinal tract.

Google "planerium" to to see where "eye spots" may have started there evolution into eyes.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Feb 18, 2009
 
JPr wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No one saw the murder. But there are finger prints and DNA left behind. Can we make a conclusion even though no one saw the crime?

The fact is, we have a lot of "forensic" evidence supporting evolution.
JPr wrote:
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?
Ummmm...What you are talking about here is called "Lamarckism", and was an idea that was discarded in the early 1800's.

Evolution deals with genetic changes. What you are talking about here are physical, not genetic, adaptations. Such physical adaptations are not passed on.
JPr wrote:
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.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
JPr wrote:
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
Your arguments are most of the variety known as "arguments from incredulity". That is, you don't see how it could have happened, so it must not have. This is a logical fallacy, since you are basing your conclusions on your own ignorance.

Read some of the books I suggested. You need more information than you have now to make any decision.(Which is why I don't agree with the "strength and weaknesses" approach and let the students decide. At the high school level, the students are not going to have anywhere near enough information to make an informed decision.)
JPr

Maiden, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Feb 18, 2009
 
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
No one saw the murder. But there are finger prints and DNA left behind. Can we make a conclusion even though no one saw the crime?
The fact is, we have a lot of "forensic" evidence supporting evolution.
<quoted text>
Ummmm...What you are talking about here is called "Lamarckism", and was an idea that was discarded in the early 1800's.
Evolution deals with genetic changes. What you are talking about here are physical, not genetic, adaptations. Such physical adaptations are not passed on.
<quoted text>
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
<quoted text>
Your arguments are most of the variety known as "arguments from incredulity". That is, you don't see how it could have happened, so it must not have. This is a logical fallacy, since you are basing your conclusions on your own ignorance.
Read some of the books I suggested. You need more information than you have now to make any decision.(Which is why I don't agree with the "strength and weaknesses" approach and let the students decide. At the high school level, the students are not going to have anywhere near enough information to make an informed decision.)
But, weren't the beaks that Darwin observed physical changes? So are you saying that for the animals to survive they changed their genetics? Or the genetics just knew they had to change in order for them to survive?
JPr

Maiden, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Feb 18, 2009
 
And forgot to mention that your DNA, fingerprint example doesn't have to do anything with micro evolution becoming macro evolution.

And if you are giving the example to explain evolution, on what we discussed earlier. Then, it doesn't work. Cause DNA and fingerprinting can find the source (origin) in other words the murderer. With the fossils evolutionists can't still explain the origin.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Feb 19, 2009
 
JPr wrote:
And forgot to mention that your DNA, fingerprint example doesn't have to do anything with micro evolution becoming macro evolution.
And if you are giving the example to explain evolution, on what we discussed earlier. Then, it doesn't work. Cause DNA and fingerprinting can find the source (origin) in other words the murderer. With the fossils evolutionists can't still explain the origin.
JPr wrote:
With the fossils evolutionists can't still explain the origin.
Why can't they?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Feb 19, 2009
 
JPr wrote:
<quoted text>
But, weren't the beaks that Darwin observed physical changes? So are you saying that for the animals to survive they changed their genetics? Or the genetics just knew they had to change in order for them to survive?
They were genetic changes. The beaks of individuals not not grow to different size. Rather certain sizes were more advantageous depending on the food that was available. Those with beaks closer to the most advantageous size would survive more, breed more, and those genes would be more common in the next generation.

No, the genetics did not "know". You are anthropomorphizing. This is another common creationist misconception. Evolution does not have a goal in mind. It is just that for a particular gene, one variation (allele) gives a greater chance of survival than another. Over time, that allele with become more and more common in the population.

It is not a simple thing to explain, because it is a massive web of cause and effect. Changing genes, changing environments. It all leads to species changing with time. Eventually, so much change has occurred that one has to call it a different species than what its ancestors were.

And the change keeps on happening.

Read a book or two of the one I suggested. Perhaps you will gain a better understanding.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Feb 19, 2009
 
JPr wrote:
And forgot to mention that your DNA, fingerprint example doesn't have to do anything with micro evolution becoming macro evolution.
And if you are giving the example to explain evolution, on what we discussed earlier. Then, it doesn't work. Cause DNA and fingerprinting can find the source (origin) in other words the murderer. With the fossils evolutionists can't still explain the origin.
No, it has to do with your claim "you weren't there", to paraphrase. Even though scientists weren't there to observe the changes, the changes have left evidence - clues. Scientists can ferret out those clues.

Your analogy in the last paragraph is a bad one. It is also something I have seen with a lot of creationists (which I am not sure you deserve that "title" yet, but you come close sometimes.) Creationist often take an analogy way too far. Analogies are only meant to illustrate a particular point - in this case "you weren't there". They are not meant to be exact replicas of the situation.
Chaz

Manchester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Feb 19, 2009
 
JPr wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Your argument would have a point if the process of micro and macro evolution were different in any way, but they are not. They are both the exact same process, the only difference being timescale.

Whether you accept it or not, micro-evolution is very strong evidence of macro-evolution. Organisms DO change over time, therefore it is logicial to assume that over a greater period of time, organisms change a great deal.

Add to this the evidence we find in the geological column, evidence gathered from our own DNA and anthropology, and you get a pretty solid explanation for how life diversifies.

Evolution DOES occur. Unless you can provide a rational and well-substanciated explanation for all of this evidence.
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Feb 19, 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.
Oh really?

Which ones...?

And, no... No one but creationists and newspaper and magazine editors use the phrase "missing links". It's really a silly term; every new transitional fossil found leaves two more "missing links" on either "side"...

There are transitional forms known between virtually every major vertebrate group:

Transitional forms between fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptile, reptile and mammal...

The reptile to dino link is a bit weak yet (we'll find more there), but the dino to bird link is now "flooded" with transitional forms like feathered dinos, flying dinos, and raptor-like toothed birds!

As others have said...there are transitional forms showing whale evolution from land animal to ocean-going behemoth; horses from small toed forest animals to big, hoofed, high-speed plain runners; even a Manatee with legs!

So, again, what fossils DON'T support evolutionary theory??? I'd sure like to hear the details on that!

Level 1

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Feb 19, 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.
Isn't that exactly what happens? You were born with everything you need, right?

Level 1

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Feb 19, 2009
 
JPr wrote:
And forgot to mention that your DNA, fingerprint example doesn't have to do anything with micro evolution becoming macro evolution.
Actually, yes it does. There are genetic markers that species share which directly point to shared ancestry. When one compares the genomes of these species the pattern of similarity and differences are exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is true. It is the same as comparing the DNA at a crime scence and the DNA of the suspect in order to determine if they have the same source.
Cause DNA and fingerprinting can find the source (origin) in other words the murderer. With the fossils evolutionists can't still explain the origin.
You forget that we have the genomes of living species, and that DNA demonstrates that these divergent species have DNA that originated in a common ancestor. For example, humans and chimps share many retroviral insertions that can only be explained by that retroviral insertion occuring in a common ancestor.

Level 1

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Feb 19, 2009
 
JPr wrote:
<quoted text>
But, weren't the beaks that Darwin observed physical changes?
What Darwin observed was that finches had filled niches that were filled by other animals in Europe. They filled these niches by evolving different styles of beaks. He concluded that a single species of finch diverged into many groups that then evolved to fill these niches.

So are you saying that for the animals to survive they changed their genetics?
In all populations there is a certain amount of variation. Due to random mutations, this variation is always being added to. Some variations will be better able to get food, and therefore will have more offspring than those without this specific variation. Over time, those with the genes for this variation will become more and more commmon.

Species do not consciously change their own DNA. Rather, variation in DNA is filtered by natural selection so that the DNA that codes for the best attributes are passed on at a higher rate.
cloudsrider

Monument, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Feb 19, 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.
In other words you know absolutely nothing about any branch of science or its processes, but want people who've spent a lifetime studying one branch to explain it all in 500 words so you can dismiss it with irrefutable biblelogic from Jack Chik comics. Are you actually interested in learning?
Lesson one:

Biological Evolution:
1. Replicate imperfectly
2. Survive long enough to goto 1.
Iterate Billions of times per year with massive parallelism. Evolution and complexity are inevitable. Stress a small isolated population and evolution happens (relatively) quickly.
cloudsrider

Monument, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Feb 19, 2009
 
Lesson two:

Abiogenesis: Not an evolutionary process until replication occurs
(Billions of complex organic molecules/cubic meter)
*(Billions of cubic meters)
*(Billions of different environments)
*(Billions of Joules of energy)
*(Billions of different energy forms (wavelengths, heat, discharges, etc))
*(Billions of years)
*(Billions of semi terrestrial planets in the universe)->
One molecule sort of self replicates, evolution is off and running.
Any improbable event becomes a certainty when number of opportunities approaches the quantified improbability. The first self replicator would be
nothing like a cell - just one or a small number of fairly simple molecules. Once something starts to iteratively replicate, the evolutionary algorithm leads inevitably to complexity.

And we have (actuall scientists, not creIDiots) found simple self replicating molecules - Life is chemistry
cloudsrider

Monument, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Feb 19, 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.
You are just WRONG about "not every fossil fits with the theory of evolution". You have swallowed lies. While many fossils and other scientific discoveries cause modifications to details about particular relationships, the overal model of biological evolution has been strengthened by EVERY fossil, DNA pattern, geological discovery, etc, etc yet found.
cloudsrider

Monument, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Feb 19, 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.
DETRACT, DETRACT, DETRACT, NOT "distract"!! Your use of "had" here is purest ignorance. From eyes, to hearts, to sexual organs, to arms and legs, we have extant examples and records of plenty of intermediate structures, and understand how and why many developed.
harvey smith

Rio Rancho, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Feb 19, 2009
 
How can evolution be the cause of brown-feathered sparrows when none of its predators see in color?

obviously, God made the sparrow brown to give it camoflage from humans.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Feb 19, 2009
 
harvey smith wrote:
How can evolution be the cause of brown-feathered sparrows when none of its predators see in color?
obviously, God made the sparrow brown to give it camoflage from humans.
Hate to burst your bubble, but eagles and hawks can see in color.

As a matter of fact, MOST (if not all) birds can. That is why their feathered mating displays are so colorful. Why would a peacock be so beautiful if the peahen couldn't see the impressive colors

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Feb 19, 2009
 
cloudsrider wrote:
<quoted text>In other words you know absolutely nothing about any branch of science or its processes, but want people who've spent a lifetime studying one branch to explain it all in 500 words so you can dismiss it with irrefutable biblelogic from Jack Chik comics. Are you actually interested in learning?
Lesson one:
Biological Evolution:
1. Replicate imperfectly
2. Survive long enough to goto 1.
Iterate Billions of times per year with massive parallelism. Evolution and complexity are inevitable. Stress a small isolated population and evolution happens (relatively) quickly.
Reading "JPr's" posts, I can picture him sitting there with the creationist's handbook in his lap going through the pages and rattling off one creationist claim after another. He's hit most of them already
JPr

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Feb 19, 2009
 
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>
Reading "JPr's" posts, I can picture him sitting there with the creationist's handbook in his lap going through the pages and rattling off one creationist claim after another. He's hit most of them already
Nop, I don;t have any creationist book. And I havn't even mention the bible at all for you to be saying that.(Not you but the other guy). This is just coming from my mind. Questions that I want to ask and need to. I still don't get the thing about natural selection and it being for food to survive etc.

I don't understand something. I will take dar example of the bears with brown and white fur. If the brown bears where together and then some separated cause supossesly there were too many of them and it was hard to eat for some. So those went to the artic. Wouldn't they have to live there for millions of years for them to evolved into white fur bears. Since brown bears have the disadvantage at the artic, that would mean that most if not all of them died in those millions of year for lack of obtaining food.(Because they were in disadvantage.)

However, Dar explained that there gene were already changing. Which now rises the question. If before the bears split their genes were already changing, why would then only half of the one who went to the artic actually completed the evolution? Another thing is that evolution would require a long period of time for it to occur, taking me back to my first point.

And yes I might be using my "common sense" logic, prediction from observations that i have made in what I know about the theory. What's wrong with that? Didnt darwin do the same thing?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••