|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What i can't understand about evolution.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Kind = ability to breed
if they can breed, they are of the same kind
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Mantis writes: Science is not a single, universal theory. There are many, many theories, and each individual theory is about something different. The Theory of Evolution, in its basic form, is only the scientific principle of descent with modification (i.e., the principle "offspring are different from their parents"). You can use this theory to trace all life back to a single ancestor, but this is just an add-on: it is not a fundamental part of the theory. If life instead proves to be traceable to six original ancestors, and not to a single ancestor, the Theory of Evolution (descent with modification) can still be real. life could arise from a "primordial soup" several different times, and each of these could evolve separately. You do not need only a single starter to make evolution happen. firstly, you have called it a theory 7 times... i thought it was a 'fact'... which is it? Fact or Theory? 2ndly, the primoridal soup idea...where is the evidence for it? What physical proof of the soup do we have that can physically be examined and tested?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Huntard writes: If you are referring to evolution, it's both. You do know what a scientific theory is, don't you? It began with the Urey-Miller experiment. There have been other experiments after that. Though I only know the basics for these. you might need to explain it to me If evolution is founded upon events (primordial soup) that no humans witnessed...can it really be called a 'fact'? Have scientists observed mutations”even beneficial ones”that produce new life-forms? Have they witnessed the spontaneous generation of life? Has anyone produced protein and DNA in the laboratory?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Huntard writes: It isn't based upon that [primordial soup] "fact". It's based upon the fact the alelle frequency in a population changes with time. but i asked if the foundation of the theory of evolution could be called a fact. I dont believe it can be, and yet according to the evolution theory, it magically happened...somehow. now, im no scientist, but that doesnt sound very scientific to me.
Huntard writes: They have observed mutations. but not ones that produve new life-forms, unless you want to call every new born life-form a new one, since it has mutations in it that the parents don't have. So no one has observed any mutations that have created a new species, yet thats how ALL species came into existence...thru gradual 'decent with modification' & 'mutations' & 'natural selection' So again, the theory is relying on an unproven, unobservable, unrepeatable phenomenon that apparently magically happens...i thought science was about evidence in the sense that it can be 'proven, observed & repeatable?
Huntard writes: They have witnessed the spontaneous generation of the building blocks of life. This is still an ongoing study. Yes your talking about the Urey/Miller experiment from over half a century ago. They did well in producing some amino acids in their flask. But since that time no one, after 50 years of trying, have produced anything any more substantial then that. They are still trying to work out how DNA and RNA even work together let alone how they 'evolved' yet it magically happened and apparently the (unprovable) primordial soup was responsible for it. can anyone see why many people do not believe in evolution? However, if you are interpreting 'evolution' to mean gradual changes in a species to provide a great variety within that species, then i can agree with it, because genes do create great variety the parrot family for instance has a huge variety and they proably did all develop into their separate types within that family through 'evolution' Humans too.... such a huge variety exists among us DogsHorses Cats the variety within a species is endless... to me, this is probably the most likely 'evolution' senario
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Hi Modulous,
thank you for your indepth reply... i did read it all btw.
Modulous writes: The psychology is interesting and familiar to me - it is incredibly rare to find a person that denies evolution that also understands it ... It is rarer still to find someone who might admit that it is a teensy bit arrogant for someone who has spent zero years at university studying the subject to believe they have a grasp of the subject this is very true and i appreciate the point your making here. I've never undertaken any science studies so i'm obviously not speaking from experience. But its certainly not arrogance that makes me disbelieve evolution. if anything, arrogance is seen alive and well in evolution with such sayings as ”All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’ This is a form of intimidation and mental bullying, almost being forced to believe it without questioning it even though the theory has changed and there are many different schools of thought. From what your saying above, only people involved the the study of evolution can understand it. If thats the case then surely you must understand why anyone who doesnt study might doubt its validity, because how can they understand something they have not personally studied? Is it even reasonable to expect every person to study evolutionary science? Likewise, is it reasonable to expect those of us who dont study, to simply accept the results of those who do study? this is quite a dilemma, yes? lol
Modulous writes: You can see it in action. Long and thoughtful posts that try and give as complete an answer as possible given the constraints of the medium are ignored or only partially responded to. Certain sentences are picked out and "Aha! Gotcha" replies are made. This is the hallmark of someone that doesn't want to challenge their own beliefs, someone who is committed to their ideas but won't take the time to explain them and expose them to criticism and they won't go into any details about why the extensive posts of others are wrong they'll just say silly things about how the theory of evolution postulates magic events and 'poofs' and avoid substantive scientific discussions all the while criticising the science of the subject. im sure evolutionists are as committed to their ideas about the origin of life just as much as creationists are committed to their belief in a creator. both are a matter of faith if you get to the nitty gritty of it. Evolution has not given an answer for the origin of the first living cell or how lifeless chemicals came alive or how genes shape the form of living things ....these are all a matter of faith in that "it must have happened" even though we cant replicate it, or observe it. for someone like me, who has not studied evolution personally and who believes in a creator, this is a HUGE hurdle. On one hand evolution says that all living things in existence came from an original single celled organism or a primordial soup (???) ...or perhaps landed here in the form of bacteria on the back of a metorite... The odds are infinitesimally small that any of this could have happened. I dont have to be a scientist to know that life only comes from pre existing life, and yet, if i dont believe in evolution, then im an arrogant uneducated fool.
Modulous writes: if you are prepared to accept that lions are related to my pussing tat, you would have a hard time denying the smilodon is also related to her. From there you would have difficulty denying Machairodus is related to her. Why not the leopard cat? And if the leapard cat why not the civet cat and why not the mongoose? Once you've accepted that my little Niobe is related to the mongoose you'll find yourself being drawn to accept the relationship with the hyena and the you would have to concede hyenas and dogs. Eventually the whole carnivora has opened up. Well you see this is where i dont have a problem with 'evolution' as i said im willing to accept that within a particular species, there is a huge variety and its quite reasonable to accept that species have diverged or branched out through 'evolution' aka 'genetics'. The problem i see in what you are saying is that, the feline at some stage is linked to the hyena... but is that really likely? What is the evidence for such a link?Even Darwin expressed concern over gaps in the fossil record which failed to produce any transitional links. Actually the fossil record has shown the sudden appearance of fully formed and complete species over and over again. Are you able to provide any fossil evidence of partly formed organs or bones showing a gradual transition into a new species??? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
saying that all fossils are transitional doesnt cut it
saying that evidence that a feline and a hyena can be linked via 'DNA & Fossils' doesnt cut it either evidence, proof...links...pictures...research notes etc
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Parasomnium writes: make an exception for evolution? Is it perhaps because, in your perception, evolution conflicts with your religion, and medicine and quantum physics do not? no, its because evolution is based on the premis that species all decended from a common ancestor... this implies that it originated from an original source...from a primordial soup where life sprang to life...where simple molecules 'developed' into complex ones, they came to life somehow and developed into all the life we have on earth today. THAT is why i take exception to evolution. Life only comes from pre existing life...this is fact and all smart scientists know it. This is probably why most have steered clear of placing 'origin of life' & 'evolution' in the same sentence. Perhaps someone should have told Darwin to change the title of his book from 'Origin of the species' to 'Species of Evolution' that would make more sense.
Parasomnium writes: So, yes, it is perfectly reasonable to expect those of us who don't study, to simply accept the results of those who do study. I am happy to accept evolution. Actually i do...to a point... only to the point where the origin of life is involved. If evolution insists that each species came from some other species, then this is not in line with what we see in nature. Each species continues to produce its own kind - in great variety - I accept this and i accept genetics. But this crossing of species does not happen. They have not successfully cross bred anything of a differnt species, have they?
Parasomnium writes: Even if this simplified version of evolution were accurate, then how do you know what the odds are? Could you elaborate on the precise calculations of the odds involved? How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would most likely decompose any complex amino acids that formed in the atmosphere. Ultra violent light is used to kill bacteria, not grow it! i've read that there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins, yes? And they come in two types, yes? Now here's the problem, if they formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be of one type and half would be of the other type. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, ALL are of the same type. the odds of this happening would be like me having a huge jar of blue and red jelly beans, mixing them all up and putting my hand in to pull out a handful that are all the same colour! What are chances of that happening????
Parasomnium writes: what happens to such molecules is just chemistry and physics. A cell is very much more complex than those single molecules, but ultimately, what's going on in a cell is still only chemistry and physics. And if that's the case, then, given that evolution can take place even at the molecular level, it's possible for life to come from non-life, wherever you draw the line between them. it is only possible if existing life is used at the projectornote this comment from the 1974 Encyclopædia Britannica, French microbiologist Rene Dubos. its from his essay“The Mysteries of Life.” “A fully developed virus, which had been naturally produced by a living organism, was separated into its component parts by chemical procedures. When these separate parts were tested for biological activity, they were found to be inert, that is, they were unable to multiply in a susceptible organism. This biological activity was restored, however, when the parts of the virus were chemically reassembled in the test tube under the proper conditions. Spectacular as this achievement is from the chemical point of view, it does not constitute”as has been claimed”the production of life de novo. Since the virus first had to be produced by a living organism, and since its reassembled parts showed activity only when introduced into a living susceptible organism, all the biological machinery essential for its reproduction had to be provided by preexisting life." Parasomnium writes: You might take a look at the evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles. In brief, it appears from the fossil record that three bones that fulfilled a function in the jaws of early reptiles have evolved into the three small bones in the middle ear of their mammalian descendants, where they now have a function quite different from the original. Thats pure conjecture. if you look at the bones of many creatures you'll see similarities, it cannot be proved that these bones evolved to produce a new species.When the amphibian supposedly evolved into a reptile, the wastes eliminated were noted to have changed from urea to uric acid. But when the reptile became a mammal there was a reversal. Mammals went back to the amphibian way, eliminating wastes as urea. In effect, evolution went backward”something that theoretically it is not supposed to do. How do they explain that??? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Hi Huntard,
sorry to be pedantic but did you notice the contradiction here? I said, 'life only comes from pre-existing life' you replied
Huntard writes: This is wrong, where did the original life form come from, if it can only come from other life? surely this statement implies that something 'non-living' came to life. then you say
Huntard writes: But evolution IS the origin of species, not the origin of life. which implies what i said initially, that evolution is about the origin of life. Lets face it, if everything came from something else, then it must go right back to nothingness, just like the universe...at some point the universe came into existence from 'non-existence'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
percy writes: That new species evolve from existing species is a basic premise of evolution, but that life on this planet descended from a common ancestor is a conclusion based upon fossil and genetic evidence. Genetic studies tell us that all cellular life, including bacteria and the cells in our own body, uses DNA and an RNA protein production factory. All evidence points to a common ancestor for all life. And it's a conclusion, not a premise. if its only a conclusion, why is it taught as being a fact? And why is it wrong of me not to believe the conclusion? If it is in fact only a conclusion...or is it fact??? im confused.
percy writes: Are you finding the long replies helpful, or are they just too much? Yes i am, short and sweet is much better for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: Changes that make a species more likely to survive will be passed on to future generations. if as you say, animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, and became more capable of surviving, yes? If thats the case, why is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” How is it that the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
so again,
how can evolution and origin of life not go hand in hand in light of what you are saying I understand that you are saying they are separate issues, one being how species developed/evolved, the other, how life began and yet, if you follow the evolutionary chain, they all lead you back to an original source... what came before the original source?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Hi Modulous
modulous writes: What makes you think that 'ape-men' are better at surviving in this world than chimpanzees and orangutans and gorillas (which are having a tough time of it right now as it is)? Surely the evidence would indicate that 'ape-men' aren't so good at surviving given that only one species of them did (us). what came first, the apes or the ape men? if the ape men were supposed to have evolved into a more advanced form of previous ape, then how is it that those lower apes, survived and the more advanced apes did not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
by ape-man i mean the 'ape-men' who came before us...i dont know their scientific name
but this image explains perfectly what i mean.
the question i asked was why we still have lower forms of ape existing today. Please forgive me everyone else who has replied, i havnt read them all yet. Incidently, why is it assumed that the ape-men who came before us, had little hair??? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
thank you huntard,
I have no idea. Nor is it important for evolution. It's likely we will never know what came before, but that we're going to find out how it could've happened. But for now, a definitive answer is lacking. This however does not mean that you can discard evolution any more then you can discard nuclear physics, gravity and a whole bunch of other scientific theories that don't explain the origins of the things rthey are describing, but do describe how these things work. i agree with what you are saying, hence, as i've said before, i accept evolution to a point...to the point of where one species begins and ends I think it is also fair that evolutionists should not be so quick as to rule out completely the idea of a universal God/Creator if as you say, a definitive answer to the origin of life is lacking, then we cannot rule out an intelligent designer altogether.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Huntard writes: As was pointed out the term "lower" is wrong. As for why they aren't here anymore, they weren't suited to survive in the environment they were in. granted, 'lower' is a bad use of wording ....all life is complicated and amazing. I should have asked why gorillas and orangutans and monkeys are still around today....why didn't they all evolve?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024