Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?
romajc
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 283 (312291)
05-16-2006 12:58 AM


Animals evolving seems very unlikely to me. For example;
You have a fish, swimming in water. Eventually it ends up on land, maybe as a reptile like animal. Next, this reptile creature turns either into a bird like animal that can fly or maybe a mammal which is warm blooded.
Now, lets look at the steps that would need to happen.
We have the fish, with nothing but scales and fins needed for water. You have tons of this fish. Through natural selection only the strong will survive. In order for these fish to become land animals they must be able to be fast, agile swimmers. Why would these fish ever evolve legs? Lets say this fish somehow gets a little mutated over time and starts to get a leg like appendage. This fish will be a worse swimmer than all the fish with regular fins. Any fish that even starts to evolve into a land animals would be the first fish to get eaten.
Next, we have the reptil turning into a flying bird. This reptile has four legs it uses to walk, run after prey, escape predators, etc. Mutation happens and it starts its way towards wings instead of front legs. Wow, this reptile can barely walk. What do you know, first to be eaten.
Evoltution, makes no sense. It is just theory. Mutations to animals are never good. They just impair animals. Anytime animals in this day and age become mutated, they are less superior than the normal animals. Mutating fruit flies only produced inferior fruit flies with four wings, no wings, curved wings, etc. There is no proof of evolution happening. If there are millions of one kind of animal, they will not all evolve at the same time at the same rate. Only a few would mutate and evolve. Therefore it is safe to say the others may stay the same as they were. After a while you would have the original animals, the newly evolved animals, and many animals between the two.
In the past, scientist have always been wrong. The Earth is flat, Earth is the center of the universe, etc. Earth is 6000 years old, then it is 100,000, then 700,000, 2mil, 3mil, now 4.6mil. You can't prove what happened in the past unless you were there. Evolution makes no sense. While Creation atleast has some logic. My opinion have you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2006 1:21 AM romajc has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 212 of 283 (312293)
05-16-2006 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by romajc
05-16-2006 12:58 AM


Too bad the facts contradict you.
Hi romajc, Welcome to EvC. This is a place to learn stuff and it seems you should have done more reading before you started posting.
You have a lot to learn.
We have the fish, with nothing but scales and fins needed for water. You have tons of this fish. Through natural selection only the strong will survive. In order for these fish to become land animals they must be able to be fast, agile swimmers. Why would these fish ever evolve legs? Lets say this fish somehow gets a little mutated over time and starts to get a leg like appendage. This fish will be a worse swimmer than all the fish with regular fins. Any fish that even starts to evolve into a land animals would be the first fish to get eaten.
Since we see fish TODAY which have partial legs and walk on land AND climb trees most of your idea above is clearly wrong. In addition, we have fossil fish, leggy fish, half fish, fishy amphibian and amphibians. So we see the transitions that took place. Not all fish are free, fast agile swimmers today and clearly there are niches where they do not need to be.
Your conclusion is based on incorrect facts.
It's just a theory.
That sentence is almost right. It should read "It is a theory!!!". A theory is not JUST anything. It is the highest form of scientific statment you can make. The atomic theory, germ theory and Einstein's theory of gravity are others that are about as well substantiated as the evolutionary explanation. You are making the mistake of useing the colloquial definition of the word "theory". That is NOT the right one.
Mutations to animals are never good.
Another incorrect statment. We see mutations occuring today in other animals AND in humans that are clearly beneficial in the current environment.
Again you need to get your facts straight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by romajc, posted 05-16-2006 12:58 AM romajc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by romajc, posted 05-16-2006 1:56 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
romajc
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 283 (312297)
05-16-2006 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by NosyNed
05-16-2006 1:21 AM


Re: Too bad the facts contradict you.
I am young, and probably on the low side of knowledge on these forums. I have not been in school or on Earth long enough to even be able to compete with what most of you on here think. And I am not here to talk about English. You know what I meant about theory. And yes, I am here to learn because I have recently become very interested in such subjects. So anything you can teach me would be appreciated.
Now, my examples still stand. I never said there aren't fish that can walk on land or climb trees. I believe those fish have always been like that. Simple, this fish walks, climbs, and swims. Where does this fish live? Why does it need to walk and climb? I would like for you to give me a link to the fish you are talking about so I can give my reasoning on it. But I will give partial reason on what I know about your statement(which isn't much).
This fish can do all these things. You probably think this fish used to only swim, and it is now evolving into a land animal, correct? How is it evolving? Through mutation? If it becomes a land animal it must lose its gills, correct? And it must be able to breath the same air we breath. How will this happen? Will it be able to breath like we do, and also have gills? Then its leg like fins will enable it to walk better on land. Therefore it can spend more time on land without becoming prey all too often. I may not be making too much sense to you, and I am sorry. But all I am saying is that to me this theory or whatever you want to call it makes no sense to me. This fish cannot evolve into a pure land animal. Any mutation will harm what it is able to do in some way. Are there animals that breath with gills and lungs? This fish will never be able to be a land animal. Mutations will either make it die under water or it won't be able to last on land.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2006 1:21 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Chiroptera, posted 05-16-2006 10:41 AM romajc has not replied

  
romajc
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 283 (312298)
05-16-2006 2:10 AM


Also, I have never heard of someone saying evolution occurs very rapidly. To me, they only way evolution could happen is if it was rapidly. But we know that isn't true or else we probably would witness evolution. Therefore, since no one has witnessed it, we say it happens very slowly over millions of years. Which leads me to think even less of evolution. Trust me, I could have a much easier time believing in evolution if it was rapid than slow.
A fish is in the water, it can only breath in the water, yet it can walk on land for short distances and even climb! This fish lays its eggs they become somehow mutated beyond belief! Babies are born, two of them of opposite sex have mutated into land breathing animals. They come to the surface and reproduce. THE END
I would have a much easier time believing the story I just told that the millions of years theory. Why? Because unless some miracle happens, this fish won't be able to transition into a land breathing animal. The more its fins turn into legs, the more it will die in the water.
I am sorry, evolution just makes absolutely no sense to me. I am young, and know very little. I grew up in school, learning only of evolution. Of course I believed it, who doesnt? You only know what you are taught when young. Now that I am 21, and can think for myself, it all seems bogus. Creation was like a light bulb to me. All through school evolution seemed so stupid, but it is all I knew. Creation just makes so much more sense. I am no creationist fanboy. I am very sceptical and the christian religion. I believe the bible when it comes to how everything came to be. But I have a hard time believing one religion is right, all others are wrong. Anyways, I am sure, with over 3000 post you know much more than I. So next time please post some links to what you are saying. I dont need to post links because I am only stating my own thoughts and logic. I never stated "facts". You said to bad the facts contradict me yet you showed me no facts... So, what facts contradict me?
Edited by romajc, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2006 3:13 AM romajc has replied
 Message 218 by Codegate, posted 05-16-2006 10:02 AM romajc has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 215 of 283 (312306)
05-16-2006 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by romajc
05-16-2006 2:10 AM


Facts
Others will probably supply you with links. I have told you what is true. If you don't believe me, fine, it doesn't bother me it just means you don't learn something. If I thought you would change your mind when you saw the details it might be worth digging them up. So far I am not convinced you will.
You don't have to feel bad for not knowing things. There is a great deal to learn an we are all pretty ignorant about a LOT of things.
It is a matter of asking questions and being sure you have your facts straight.
BTW, no one says that a fish turns directly into a land animal. The fossils show that it occured over more than 10,000,000 years. If there are only 10,000 fish born each year that is time enough to have 100 billion different fish. All of them different from each other.
You keep making statments that sound like you are so sure of them as fact. Like "The more its fins turn into legs, the more it will die in the water.". The example of the mud skipper (google that)and the fossil transitions is to show that this isn't true.
If you think those kind of things it is probably a very good bet that EVERYTHING you think you know about evolutionary theory and the facts of life on the planet earth is ALL wrong. (or at least so close to all that you might as well consider it to be all wrong).
This fish lays its eggs they become somehow mutated beyond belief!
No one suggests that this happened at ANY time. If a mutation causes a very large change the chances are very high that it will be bad.
However, a few mutations (you have from 5 to 100 yourself) in each of 100 BILLION fish can add up to a lot of change over time periods of from millions to 10's of millions of years.
If you doubt the dating then I suggest you go to the dating forum and look at the evidence there. There is no goood reason to doubt that the earth is around 4.5 billlion years old.
It is unlikely you thought this up yourself. There are, out there in books and on the web (and speaking too) people who lie about the facts . You will have to figure out how to tell who is lying and who is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by romajc, posted 05-16-2006 2:10 AM romajc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by romajc, posted 05-16-2006 5:04 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
romajc
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 283 (312317)
05-16-2006 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by NosyNed
05-16-2006 3:13 AM


Re: Facts
You are calling all these things facts... because someone thought it up, didnt in any way prove it, and it got down to you. It isnt fact. Fact is observable. Your belief that this could by chance happen over billions of years is nothing but a belief, not fact. Please use the word fact only for facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2006 3:13 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by RickJB, posted 05-16-2006 6:25 AM romajc has not replied
 Message 219 by jar, posted 05-16-2006 10:18 AM romajc has replied
 Message 221 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-16-2006 10:57 AM romajc has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 217 of 283 (312327)
05-16-2006 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by romajc
05-16-2006 5:04 AM


Re: Facts
romajc writes:
You are calling all these things facts... because someone thought it up, didnt in any way prove it, and it got down to you. It isnt fact. Fact is observable. Your belief that this could by chance happen over billions of years is nothing but a belief, not fact. Please use the word fact only for facts.
And PLEASE could you attempt to educate yourself about that which you deride with such certainty. Also, your objections are mere pale shadows of the kind that evolution has consistently faced over it's 150 year history.
Evolution is an observed fact. It has also made valid predictions in other scientific fields. Why don't you read up on evolution and discover the huge amount of work that has gone into it, as opposed to jumping to ill-informed conclusions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by romajc, posted 05-16-2006 5:04 AM romajc has not replied

  
Codegate
Member (Idle past 818 days)
Posts: 84
From: The Great White North
Joined: 03-15-2006


Message 218 of 283 (312383)
05-16-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by romajc
05-16-2006 2:10 AM


I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I believe the key to evolution is coming to grips with the massive number of generations involved as well the selective pressures of natural selection.
The points that you raise about a fish evoloving legs would make it a 'weaker' fish are completely true. Let's switch it up a bit though and change our viewpoint.
Long long ago, the oceans were full of fish of all varieties. Let's assume for arguments sake that one of these species of fish evoloved into a 'better' predator fish - maybe it had slightly longer fins to make it swim faster or more manuverable. Maybe it had better cardiovascular traits making it a more effective hunter. Maybe it had a slight coloration change that made it easire for it to stalk it's prey.
Each of these changes is a very small and subtle thing that would give it a slight advantage over the others in the area. So what would happen to the other species that could no longer compete effectively?
They would be driven out looking for other sources of food.
So now lets move onto one of these exiled species. They were forced due to their inability to compete in their native environment to move to the shallows where hunting the 'big prey' was no longer an option so they were forced to eke out a living eating shallow water insects that lived both on and around the water.
In addition, they had to still compete with the the more 'effective' fish that would prey on their young making survival difficult. So what do they do? They would start moving to shallower and shallower water to escape to make reproducing more successful. Some of these fish would even start using the tidal pools right on the shoreline to lay their eggs.
Time passes and the waters slowly receed. As they do, these fish which are now ingrained with laying their eggs in these tidal pool continue to try to return to them to lay their eggs. Similarly to salmon jumping waterfalls to get back upstream, these fish would flop their way into the pools to lay their eggs.
Initially it would just be a very short distance - a foot or two - but as the eons passed this distance got further and further. The fish that had stronger fins were able to make the trip easier ensuring that future generation would have stronger fins.
More eons pass. The fish now are able to 'crawl' the distance on their evolved fins and we have the beginning of land walking creatures. This process took literally millions of years and billions if not trillions of fish to accomplish.
It's all about the pressures of your surroundings that drive you to evolove in slow, methodical ways making it slightly easier for you over over the others around you.
As I said, I'm no expert but this scenario is one that I could definately accept as having happened.
Edited by Codegate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by romajc, posted 05-16-2006 2:10 AM romajc has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 219 of 283 (312390)
05-16-2006 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by romajc
05-16-2006 5:04 AM


Re: Facts
Actually, most folk are pretty careful to separate what they claim are facts from what is theory.
There are some things that are FACT.
  • that the earth is billions of years old.
  • that the universe is tens of billions of years old.
  • that evolution happened.
  • that the record shows that early life was very primative.
  • that the makeup of life on the earth has changed over time.
Then there are the explanations. The explanations are theories. They are our best effort so far in explaning the FACTS that are seen. There is the Theory of Evolution which so far is the best explanation for the FACT of evolution. But it is always refered to as a theory.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by romajc, posted 05-16-2006 5:04 AM romajc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by romajc, posted 05-16-2006 2:39 PM jar has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 283 (312400)
05-16-2006 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by romajc
05-16-2006 1:56 AM


Re: Too bad the facts contradict you.
quote:
I never said there aren't fish that can walk on land or climb trees.
Actually, what you said was:
In order for these fish to become land animals they must be able to be fast, agile swimmers. Why would these fish ever evolve legs?
So, in a previous post you claimed that fish need to be fast, agile swimmers and couldn't evolve legs. Now in this post you admit that there exist fish today can walk on land, yet you don't acknowledge your error. You appear to be very confused not only about science, but you seem to be confused about what you believe and what you know.
-
quote:
I would like for you to give me a link to the fish you are talking about so I can give my reasoning on it.
Here is a link to Wikipedia's article on mudskippers. Google can give you many more links.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by romajc, posted 05-16-2006 1:56 AM romajc has not replied

  
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6273 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 221 of 283 (312410)
05-16-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by romajc
05-16-2006 5:04 AM


Re: Facts
quote:
You are calling all these things facts... because someone thought it up, didnt in any way prove it, and it got down to you. It isnt fact. Fact is observable. Your belief that this could by chance happen over billions of years is nothing but a belief, not fact. Please use the word fact only for facts.
If the only facts are those that are observable, how would you define facts for a historical science? How do we know how the romans lived? How do you or anyone else know who jesus was? History by definition isn't observable after the fact, so unless you have a video, there's no observation. You may say we have written records but, how do we know how accurate those are? how have prejudices and other biases affected the account?
Just like human history, in evolution we are going by a record that we found. Just like Mayan writtings, that record needs to be deciphered and that deciphering can affect the accuracy.
Just because we haven't directly observed fish evolving into amphibians doesn't mean it didn't happen any more than the fact that nobody alive observed the american revolution doesn't mean that it didn't happen. We know it happened because of the record we have, in the form of fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by romajc, posted 05-16-2006 5:04 AM romajc has not replied

  
romajc
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 283 (312488)
05-16-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by jar
05-16-2006 10:18 AM


Re: Facts
That story was actually much better than mine. And I could see everything you said happening in natural selection. Because everything you said could happen through traits already in the fish. Sure the bigger fin fish could survive better, or the darker colored, or whatever. So eventually they would thrive. And sure the stronger fin fish could survive better on the land or whatever. But that is where it stops. They are never going to be able to evolve something they dont already have. Like being able to breath out of the water. That is the most important aspect of changing from a fish to a land animal, is it not?
As for attacking me talking about the fish needing to be more agile and quick. Then talking about the fish that can crawl on land and climb. I was using agile and quick for the fish I was talking about. I have known since elementry school about land crawling fish. It is besides the point.
As for this;
quote:
There are some things that are FACT.
that the earth is billions of years old.
that the universe is tens of billions of years old.
that evolution happened.
that the record shows that early life was very primative.
that the makeup of life on the earth has changed over time.
I dont see how any of that can be shown as fact. Just because evolution was made up 150 years ago. And everything evolutionist have discovered they fit into the evolution theory. And if it went against the evolution theory, they simply changed the evolution theory in order to fit it into the evolution theory. If you call that fact, have fun with it. Becuase the evolution theory will be much different tomorrow as it is today. Why? Because it is based on belief, it has been made up over time, it has no solid proof, instead of taking all the evidence found of the past(fossils) and coming up with a theory, the opposite has occured. A theory was made and all the evidence found has been attempted to be put into evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 05-16-2006 10:18 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Chiroptera, posted 05-16-2006 2:48 PM romajc has not replied
 Message 224 by Quetzal, posted 05-16-2006 3:00 PM romajc has not replied
 Message 225 by jar, posted 05-16-2006 3:01 PM romajc has not replied
 Message 227 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2006 3:12 PM romajc has not replied
 Message 228 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-16-2006 4:18 PM romajc has not replied
 Message 229 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-16-2006 4:37 PM romajc has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 283 (312490)
05-16-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by romajc
05-16-2006 2:39 PM


Re: Facts
quote:
Just because evolution was made up 150 years ago. And everything evolutionist have discovered they fit into the evolution theory. And if it went against the evolution theory, they simply changed the evolution theory in order to fit it into the evolution theory.
You keep saying this. Again, I invite you to look at the OP in the Evolution Simplified thread. The OP describes what the Theory of Evolution is at its most basic. That is what the ToE was when Darwin first proposed it, and it is what it remains today. As you can see, the essentials have not changed very much, if at all.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by romajc, posted 05-16-2006 2:39 PM romajc has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 224 of 283 (312491)
05-16-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by romajc
05-16-2006 2:39 PM


Re: Facts
They are never going to be able to evolve something they dont already have. Like being able to breath out of the water.
Actually, it turns out that lungs evolved even before the swim bladders possessed by most fish. In addition, there are modern fish like blennies that can jump out of the water and gulp air (they hold it in their mouths while the oxygen diffuses through their membranes). Although these guys have swim bladders like other fish, their adaptation allows them to escape predators. There are others, like gar, which gulp air to reinflate their swim bladders. Still others have sacks or specialized alveoli-like protruberances in their stomachs or esophagi - they actually breathe by "eating air".
Since we see all this different kinds of adaptations today, it's not much of a stretch to understand several ways that a fish-amphibian transition could have taken place way back then. IOW, there's nothing fancy about being able to breathe air for a fish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by romajc, posted 05-16-2006 2:39 PM romajc has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Chiroptera, posted 05-16-2006 3:08 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 225 of 283 (312492)
05-16-2006 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by romajc
05-16-2006 2:39 PM


MORE why Science works and Creationism will never be more than a silly joke.
You once again show why Biblical Creationists are simply marginal and hardly worth bothering with.
Becuase the evolution theory will be much different tomorrow as it is today. Why? Because it is based on belief, it has been made up over time, it has no solid proof, instead of taking all the evidence found of the past(fossils) and coming up with a theory, the opposite has occured. A theory was made and all the evidence found has been attempted to be put into evolution.
First, almost everything you say in that is not only wrong, it's just repetition of the classic nonsense regurgitated by almost all Biblical Creationists. The Theory of Evolution was the result of all the evidence, it came after the evidence, not before; and it changes as new evidence is discovered.
That is why Science works and Biblical Creationism will ALWAYS be wrong. It was wrong when it was first made up, and it will be wrong 1000 years in the future.
jar listed some facts:
quote:
There are some things that are FACT.
that the earth is billions of years old.
that the universe is tens of billions of years old.
that evolution happened.
that the record shows that early life was very primative.
that the makeup of life on the earth has changed over time.
to which romajc replied:
I dont see how any of that can be shown as fact.
The fact that you can't see how they can be shown as fact is simply an example of your ignorance. That can be cured. All you need is the evidence and the ability to think critically and you will understand how those things can be shown to be FACT. Fortunately, you've come to the right place to get the information to cure your ignorance.
So you have a few options:
  • you can make use of the information and people here and learn.
  • you can cut and run.
  • you can shut your ears, sing LaaLaa and wilfully ignore the evidence available.
It's up to you.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by romajc, posted 05-16-2006 2:39 PM romajc has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024