Discussion: Evolution

[Carcharodon]

people tend to hate on what they don't understand. you calling my post 'dumb' proves that point. it's okay if you're not smart enough to understand my point, Wilhelm..."my condolences"



e·volve /ɪˈvɒlv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-volv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, e·volved, e·volv·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to develop gradually:

by definition...Nintendos and cell phones DO evolve.

Fine, then let us specifiy so we can avoid these asinine posts in the future: we're talking about the defninition of evoultion as it pertains to living organisms.

 

[ang_hulk]

yes,yes it is.

 

[Carcharodon]

I agree.

If we evolved from apes why do we still have apes?

You just demonstrated your lack of understanding of the concept of evolution.

Evolution does not require the disappearance or extinction of a parent species. Entire species do not change over time: populations of species change over time.

Take a science class, all of you. Jesus Christ...

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Why would I need you to proof something to me that I already believe to be true? Save your asine remarks for the weak minded.

D00d!

You said "The Missing Link Does Not Exist."
You didn't say, "blablah when presented with the evidence it is my opinion that the notion of a "Missing Link" blahblahbla..."

You said it DOES NOT EXIST.


So, using 100% as much authority as you have, I am telling you, it's not my opinion that Allah does not exist.
He DOES NOT exist.


Now if I say th^t, I'm "asinine".
But when YOU say the same thing, you're not?!?


LMAO
flip off your brains, flip on your computers

 

[Carcharodon]

I also notice people jumping into the thread without having read the thread; we've pretty much established that it's theory by scientific definition.

You people are making evolution look bad...stop.

 

[demento]

Why would I need you to proof something to me that I already believe to be true? Save your asine remarks for the weak minded.

^ You set 'em up and he knocks 'em down.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Fine, then let us specifiy so we can avoid these asinine posts in the future: we're talking about the defninition of evoultion as it pertains to living organisms.

THANK you....God bless you for having a functional brain!
This thread has had me horrified.

This idea, btw, "Na-na-na--NA, if we came from apes, why are there still apes around." is just so telling about the simplistic approach a religious person uses to think about the origins of life.

They think in terms of "Magic Genie (G-D) twinkled his nose, and *p00f*!, life appeared."
So even while they're struggling to un-fetter their superstitious minds long enough to understand what an evolutionist is even talking about, they're still thinking, "First, there were no monkeys....THEN, monkeys appeared....., THEN, the monkeys changed into humans.....so, no more monkey. Only Human."



I.... .... this is why the world is so ****ed up. X 1,000,000

 

[Mee]

I.... .... this is why the world is so ****ed up. X 1,000,000

We must not lose hope!

 

[Kent]

No its not.

The "apes" that evolutionary theory states we are descended from are not the same apes that exist today. Evolutionary theory proposes that both humans, and the apes of today have a common ancestor. Just like your grandfather is a common ancestor of you and your cousin (if you have one).

Or in other words. Yes it is.

Even Answers in Genesis (a creationist organization) thinks the "If we came from apes..." argument is so incredibly weak they suggest creationists not use it.
Source:Arguments AiG think creationists should NOT use.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Fine, then let us specifiy so we can avoid these asinine posts in the future: we're talking about the defninition of evoultion as it pertains to living organisms.

thanks for informing me w/out being overly anal or insulting. i might've come from a different approach than what's being discussed but at least you handled the situation in a mature manner...

 

[ShadowBoxing]

The burden of proof isn't on me. Its not called Raybiaism. The burden is on Neo-Darwinism.

Actually in any arguement burden of proof falls upon the claimant to back up HIS/HER position. Not for the otherside the prove a negative (which is impossible).

However, the existence of G-d has not been discredited but the theory of evolution has.

Actually Evolution hasn't been discreditted, hence why we still base ALL our medical science off of it, and ALL are current biological theories off of it and ALL are bio-engineering off of it...and with great success.

In the case of the former point, God has not been discredited perhaps because he doesn't exist in a world that could cause his discrediting in the first place. It would be like disproving invisible men, imaginary friends, monsters that disappear in little girl's closets and giant pink elephants seen by a dilusional freak. Not to say he couldn't exist, but if you think he will be disproven...or even more falsely think science even gives a flying f*** about disproving God I'd have to say your very very wrong.

Since this theory first appeared, a large number of scientific findings have invalidated its claims one by one.

Such as....

The development of the electron microscope, new knowledge of genetic laws, the discovery of the structure of DNA, the revelation of the complexity of every living organism, and other modern advances have defeated Darwinism.

Actually no, the finding of DNA and microscopes, and genetics and complexity have revised Darwin (hence the book: The Revised Origin of the Species now being the dominant text). But in fact they upheld the basic principle of common ancestory. Keep in mind though Darwin theorized about instructivism, where nature instructed traits...whereas Neo-Darwinism is selectivist, hence "Natural Selection".

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

thanks for informing me w/out being overly anal or insulting. i might've come from a different approach than what's being discussed but at least you handled the situation in a mature manner...

You sure are bringing nerdy back.

p.s.
He called your post "asinine".
Is that not insulting?
or do you finally admit that that would be just an accurate observation?

 

[raybia]

You just demonstrated your lack of understanding of the concept of evolution.

Evolution does not require the disappearance or extinction of a parent species. Entire species do not change over time: populations of species change over time.

Take a science class, all of you. Jesus Christ...

I know enough about the theory of evolution for me to come to the conclusion to dismiss Darwin claims that all living beings had a common ancestor and that they evolved from one another by means of natural selection. There is no need for me to waste my time to obtain a better understanding of it.

When Darwin put forward his assumptions, the disciplines of genetics, microbiology, and biochemistry did not yet exist.

Science at that time didn't know that the information determining species already exists in the genes and it is impossible for natural selection to produce new species by altering genes.

The discovery, in the 1950s, of the DNA molecule, which incorporates genetic information, helps to debunk the theory of evolution, because the origin of the immense amount of information in DNA could not possibly be explained by chance.

There hasn't been a single transitional form, creatures which are supposed to show the gradual evolution of advanced organisms from more primitive ones as neo-Darwinism claims, has ever been found anywhere in the world despite the search of fossil records.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

In the case of the former point, God has not been discredited perhaps because he doesn't exist in a world that could cause his discrediting in the first place. It would be like disproving invisible men, imaginary friends, monsters that disappear in little girl's closets and giant pink elephants seen by a dilusional freak. Not to say he couldn't exist, but if you think he will be disproven...or even more falsely think science even gives a flying f*** about disproving God I'd have to say your very very wrong.

Invisible Tuna-Mammoth belly dancers have not been proven to not exist.
That's our burden.

 

[DorkyFresh]

p.s.
He called your post "asinine".
Is that not insulting?

if you're so genius go back and reread my post until you understand the difference between being insulting and being OVERLY insulting...

...and yes, looking back...i should've read a few more pages before jumping into the conversation. i make mistakes but i don't go around constantly making fun of said people or their posts (same difference). that's an immature way of dealing with that situation.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I know enough about the theory of evolution for me to come to the conclusion to dismiss Darwin claims that all living beings had a common ancestor and that they evolved from one another by means of natural selection. There is no need for me to waste my time to obtain a better understanding of it.

Obviously you don't because you still have a 4th grade understanding of it and make the same arguments that were answered half a century ago when creationists were making them.

When Darwin put forward his assumptions, the disciplines of genetics, microbiology, and biochemistry did not yet exist.

Perhaps you need to read up on the differences between Neo-Darwinism and Darwinism then...because they are two completely different animals.

Science at that time didn't know that the information determining species already exists in the genes and it is impossible for natural selection to produce new species by altering genes.

Wow, you really have no idea how Natural Selection works...because that's the big different between Instructivism *(which alters genes) and Natural Selection (which doesn't).

The discovery, in the 1950s, of the DNA molecule, which incorporates genetic information, helps to debunk the theory of evolution, because the origin of the immense amount of information in DNA could not possibly be explained by chance.

Perhaps then you should look into the theories of how DNA came about, because they have those as well. The Origin of DNA and origins of life is a different Scientific theory than Evolution...try again.

There hasn't been a single transitional form, creatures which are supposed to show the gradual evolution of advanced organisms from more primitive ones as neo-Darwinism claims, has ever been found anywhere in the world despite the search of fossil records.

Horses, Cows, forms of Dog, Birds, A Dinosaur that appears to be between Bird and Dino stage, Fossil records of human ancestors all show "Transition species". YOU are a transition species, YOUR dog is a transition species, the diseases which hit you in the winter time are transition species BTW.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

is this about that David Duchovny flick?
that's the only way it warranted 20 pages of discussion.
people sharing their awful experiences with he film.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

if you're so genius go back and reread my post until you understand the difference between being insulting and being OVERLY insulting...

...and yes, looking back...i should've read a few more pages before jumping into the conversation. i make mistakes but i don't go around constantly making fun of said people or their posts (same difference). that's an immature way of dealing with that situation.

relax, guy
I agree!
Campfires evolve into microwave ovens. That's why science lets us cook our Chicken Caesar sandwich, which used to be a dinosaur. Evolution is all around us, everyday.

 

[Morg]

Let's not go into insulting other posters peeps otherwise I gotta close this thread and give out infractions

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Miocardial Infractions?

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Miocardial Infractions?

lol
new policy
Tesla technology will be used to remotely induce heart attacks in any disrespectful poster.

 

[raybia]

Obviously you don't because you still have a 4th grade understanding of it and make the same arguments that were answered half a century ago when creationists were making them.


Says you.

Perhaps you need to read up on the differences between Neo-Darwinism and Darwinism then...because they are two completely different animals.

No need for me to.

Wow, you really have no idea how Natural Selection works...because that's the big different between Instructivism *(which alters genes) and Natural Selection (which doesn't).

I know enough to know bs when I see it.

Perhaps then you should look into the theories of how DNA came about, because they have those as well. The Origin of DNA and origins of life is a different Scientific theory than Evolution...try again.

Horses, Cows, forms of Dog, Birds, A Dinosaur that appears to be between Bird and Dino stage, Fossil records of human ancestors all show "Transition species". YOU are a transition species, YOUR dog is a transition species, the diseases which hit you in the winter time are transition species BTW.

I disagree. Nowhere in the world – neither on land nor in the sea , has any intermediate transitional form between any two species ever been uncovered.

In fact Darwin himself was quite aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped they would be found in the future but despite his hopefulness, he saw that the biggest stumbling block to his theory was the missing transitional forms. This is why, in his book The Origin of Species, he wrote:

Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.

The problem bothered other evolutionists as well. A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this embarrassing fact:
The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.

The gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained away by the wishful thinking that not enough fossils have yet been unearthed and that these missing fossils will one day be found.

Another evolutionist paleontologist, T. Neville George, explains the reason:
There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration… The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.

 

[raybia]

D00d!



So, using 100% as much authority as you have, I am telling you, it's not my opinion that Allah does not exist.
He DOES NOT exist.

Now if I say th^t, I'm "asinine".
But when YOU say the same thing, you're not?!?

That not what I was referring to when I called your remarks asinine.

I don't know you well enough to call you asinine.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

There's a very unhealthy arrogance when people sit satisfied in the "knowledge" that they know eveything.

It wasn't that long ago that people "knew" that it was plainly evident that the Earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it...'cause we're not moving, and you can watch the Sun travelling through the sky every day.

So, to them, to think it was actually the OPPOSITE, was "clearly BS".
People were even killed for such beliefs, because they contradict the Bible.

f00ls

 

[raybia]

Smooth