|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution Must Happen, it is logical | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thank you for the apology.
Let's wipe that slate clean and start over shall we? Take each of your issues and post then under appropriate topics or start new ones through the Proposed New Topics forum. I suggest that you do this only one or two at at time. Those opposing what you have to say have the advantage of having seen it all before and will deluge you with corrections. If you press deep enough you will find that the various sites you get that so-called "information" from will let you down. Go slow, ask lots of questions and you have an opportunity to learn something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RED WOLF Inactive Member |
Again I thank you for your advice.
Nat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5596 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
This is, of course, what creationists (in the common use of the term) disagree with. But why? What do they have to show that there is an error in fact or reasoning. I do agree that gene pools undergo change, and that speciation can occur. In the sense of "continuing process of change" (dictionary.com/evolution), I will even agree that evolution occurs. However, I tentatively hold that such change results in a decrease of fitness in a group. Said decrease in fitness would make large evolutionary changes impossible, because a population would have died out before such a change could be made. Therein lies the error (that I see) in you logic: that populations can undergo large amounts of genetic change without going extinct. The only other proposed barrier between "Macro-evolution" and "Micro-evolution" that I know of is "Irreducible Complexity," but I am not quite sure the idea behind that argument is valid (the scaffolding rebbutal appears solid). TTFN,JT (By the way, that is a well done OP.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
However, I tentatively hold that such change results in a decrease of fitness in a group. In what way and why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Hi, Loudmouth. Thanks for the correction on Aron-Ra. I'll look it up.
My life's been a whirlwind. I don't regret it a bit. I've been having the best time of my life. I did read quite a number of your posts while I was on a trip to Sacramento last week, but I can't add much to those science threads. Some of the stuff you scientists write is so interesting I want to go back to school and change careers. Other stuff makes me vow never to put myself through that sort of torturous study. I pop in here and there to read even when I don't have time to write.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
daaaaaBEAR Inactive Member |
Evolution HAS to happen for those that can't accept creation by God. It's that simple. A little science can keep a man from God, and a lot of science will bring him closer.
These are some of the questions i would ask that I hope will make any evolutionist question their beliefs: Why have so many evolutionists turned creationists? Evolution is given a large expanse of time to happen but is the earth really that old? (fossils do not tell us the age of the earth, fossils can be formed over 100 years and don't need a million to fossilized) Where are all the transitional species? There is a great amount of pride and fear in the hearts of evolutionists. If this earth was created, what does that mean? Am I wrong? Being wrong is what humans are best at especially in light of God's infinite wisdom and it seems me that this debate between creation and evolution is futile because it will forever be an argument until scientists learn to drop their theories and have some faith in an eternal, loving and redeeming God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Wow - you've convinced me!
I have never heard any of those arguments before and they don't read like they are cribbed straight off some creationist site like AIG. Let's shut the site now - it's all over. Joking aside I think this evolutionist makes a good point that you should listen to:
quote: This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-21-2005 19:19 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
We'reglad you're here.
One thing we enjoy is enlightened debate and discussion. But when members make assertions we expect them to make some effort to support those assertions. For example:
Why have so many evolutionists turned creationists? It would be nice to have some evidence that is true. At the bottom of this message are some links to the forum guidelines and tips on how to create great posts here. We hope you enjoy your stay. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Evolution HAS to happen for those that can't accept creation by God. It's that simple. See, the funny thing is, evolution was developed by a lot of people who believed in creation by God. So something in your post doesn't add up. What I think it is is that you have this idea that atheism and evolution are the same; which is a funny thing to say when the majority of theists also believe in evolution.
Where are all the transitional species? Exactly where we would expect to find them - fossilized in the ground, and living on the surface of the earth.
Being wrong is what humans are best at especially in light of God's infinite wisdom and it seems me that this debate between creation and evolution is futile because it will forever be an argument until scientists learn to drop their theories and have some faith in an eternal, loving and redeeming God. They can't have both, according to you? Which is funny because a majority of American scientists do have both theory and faith in the God you describe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
daaaaaBEAR Inactive Member |
"Exactly where we would expect to find them - fossilized in the ground, and living on the surface of the earth."
...good answer. i agree with what is said in this article. (http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/fossils_missing.html) "Considering that there are almost 2 million (!) species on earth today and the time it would take for a new species to evolve is many millions of years, there should be billions of transitional forms, had evolution happened. Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classifiedApplying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms." In light of this, I don't see much backing for the notion of transitional species. Fossilized in the ground? What if none are ever found. Living on the surface of the earth? What living thing is a transitional species, an elephant maybe, or a mouse, or even human beings. If modern-day transitional species are present would imply that all things will evolve further, including humans. This message has been edited by daaaaaBEAR, 01-22-2005 13:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2930 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
I don't need evidence to back my questions because a question merely opens discussion but the reply is what must have the evidence and then I can further respond with evidence of my own.
Sorry to go off topic but I thought if EVCforum were to ever have a contest for the most stupid thing ever posted on this forum I would like to nominate this quote. My three year old articulates better than this. edited for grammar. This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 01-22-2005 05:27 AM Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. There are. In fact, every single organism that has both parents and offspring is a transitional form.
What if none are ever found. But they have been found. Many have been found. For instance:
quote: I could go on and on but you wouldn't be familiar with the species I'm referring to, and all I'm going is cutting and pasting from
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ I don't know where you got this idea that there are no transitional fossils.
If modern-day transitional species are present would imply that all things will evolve further, including humans. Which is certainly true. Everything continues to evolve. There are many living transitional species, like amphibians, or even the hippopotamus, clearly in a state of transition between land and water life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
daaaaaBEAR Inactive Member |
couldn't a hippopotamus be specifically a land/water mammal instead of a transitional species.. I guess I don't see how claiming something that inhabits both land and water to be an in-between species, instead of being recognized for what it is and its own purpose. If your logic is true then amphibians will eventually become land-dwelling lizards and lose the abliity for life in the water. does this happen through mutation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6353 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
There are many living transitional species, like amphibians, or even the hippopotamus, clearly in a state of transition between land and water life. Is this really true (I'm asking for information/opinions from the many people here who know more about this stuff than I do rather than actually challenging the statement) ? Since evolution is undirected can we really say something is clearly in a state of transition - couldn't it just as well :
Aren't we limited to saying it is in a state where it could potentially transition from being aquatic to terrestial or vice versa ? If I'm wrong then why - what am I missing ? Confused ? You will be...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
couldn't a hippopotamus be specifically a land/water mammal instead of a transitional species.. The fossil history of the hippopotamus informs us that it used to be entirely landbound, like its close relative, the pig.
If your logic is true then amphibians will eventually become land-dwelling lizards and lose the abliity for life in the water. Which is exactly what some of them did; hence, we have lizards.
does this happen through mutation? It happens through evolution, which is mutation and selection put together.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024