Anyone want to try and disprove evolution?

PB Forum :: Social / Political Issues
Anyone want to try and disprove evolution?
Author Message
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Jul 10, 2009 at 16:28 Quote
ezekiel wrote:
ledzeppie wrote:
And the theories have wayyyyyy more scientific evidence to them than the bible does....

Let's use the newspaper as an example because ultimately that's what the stories of the bible are, documented events. You read an old newspaper article, you go to the spot that is described and there's no evidence, no witnesses, nothing to corroborate the story you just read. At this point in time should we all assume that the newspaper is a big lie because there is no known proof existing on that day?

Except the bible was written at least 30 years after jesus DIED and was written off of no scientific evidence at all and something that we cannot see in everyday life (which is what religion is, I know, but if I'm going to believe something as big as god, then I want to freakin see it at least twice. And if I wrote a book now that said I am the son of god and all that crap, then 2000 years later people should believe me because it was documented that I could do some magic tricks?
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Jul 10, 2009 at 16:31 Quote
ezekiel wrote:
ledzeppie wrote:
Once again, there is/will be a yes or no on evolution. We HAVE seen evolution in the last 100 years. Again bacteiria creating a resistance to antibiotics. Thats just 1 thing, there are others.

What we've seen is micro-evolution, which are baby steps in the grand scheme of the universe.

Exactly. Micro evolution is the smaller steps of macro. If we can prove that an organism can evolve in less than 100 years, which we HAVE, then why would a large scale evolution or millions of years be so insane...
flag MatatakST
Posted: Jul 10, 2009 at 22:47 Quote
Termenaitor wrote:
gibson19 wrote:
Yes I realize that theories are widely accepted... I'm just saying the way you put it made it sound like there is no room for interpretation or anything...

Personally I believe in evolution but with some supernatural power pushing it along...

As for the origin of organic matter... I'm aware you can recreate some simple amino acids... but until the 20 essential ones can be created I'll remain a skeptic... Currently the body produces I think 12 and 8 are found in nature... If they came from the moon my question remains (but apparently doesn't pertain to evolution)... How were there amino acids on the moon... Or how was there even a moon... but I don't think anyone has a reasonable argument for any of that... and until stuff like this is proven I'll continue being a skeptic of evolution without any sort of supernatural interference.

That's just you trying to push your stupid god theory into anything that disproves it..sorry but religious people, specificly christians, are the dumbest people on the planet.
Considering other religions such as Scientology, I wouldn't say Christians are the dumbest people on the planet.
flag identiti-dave
Posted: Aug 10, 2009 at 8:56 Quote
pinkboyo wrote:
Termenaitor wrote:
gibson19 wrote:
Yes I realize that theories are widely accepted... I'm just saying the way you put it made it sound like there is no room for interpretation or anything...

Personally I believe in evolution but with some supernatural power pushing it along...

As for the origin of organic matter... I'm aware you can recreate some simple amino acids... but until the 20 essential ones can be created I'll remain a skeptic... Currently the body produces I think 12 and 8 are found in nature... If they came from the moon my question remains (but apparently doesn't pertain to evolution)... How were there amino acids on the moon... Or how was there even a moon... but I don't think anyone has a reasonable argument for any of that... and until stuff like this is proven I'll continue being a skeptic of evolution without any sort of supernatural interference.

That's just you trying to push your stupid god theory into anything that disproves it..sorry but religious people, specificly christians, are the dumbest people on the planet.
Sorry, but that is a pretty big judgement seeing that you haven't met all the Christians (not to mention all the religious people) on the planet.

But he has come across the ideas that they assume are true
flag Termenaitor
Posted: Aug 11, 2009 at 23:41 Quote
identiti-dave wrote:
pinkboyo wrote:
Termenaitor wrote:


That's just you trying to push your stupid god theory into anything that disproves it..sorry but religious people, specificly christians, are the dumbest people on the planet.
Sorry, but that is a pretty big judgement seeing that you haven't met all the Christians (not to mention all the religious people) on the planet.

But he has come across the ideas that they assume are true
Exactly.
flag WasabiJim
Posted: Aug 13, 2009 at 23:28 Quote
consider a population of trees were at random, based on genes, they have long roots or short roots. a long term climate change results in less rain so only the trees with long roots can tap into the deep ground water and the rest die off.

this example see an actaul decrease in bio-deversity not an increase bought on by this survival of the fittest equals evolution idea.

evolution is based on an idea that in the process of reproducion some completely random mutation leads to a freak that not only can survive better but can pass the mutation on to its offspring. (put your hand up if you beleave in evolution? everyone now look at the mutant freaks!!)

now the question in the OP is clever (not sure if it was intensional) because the issue not so much "disproving evolution" as it is proving it.

with that in mind, lets take the eye ball. obviously it didnt just evolve from a pimple overnight. so i ask what did the eyeball evolve from? what was it and what purpose did it serve before becoming an eyeball?
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Aug 14, 2009 at 0:06 Quote
WasabiJim wrote:
consider a population of trees were at random, based on genes, they have long roots or short roots. a long term climate change results in less rain so only the trees with long roots can tap into the deep ground water and the rest die off.

this example see an actaul decrease in bio-deversity not an increase bought on by this survival of the fittest equals evolution idea.

evolution is based on an idea that in the process of reproducion some completely random mutation leads to a freak that not only can survive better but can pass the mutation on to its offspring. (put your hand up if you beleave in evolution? everyone now look at the mutant freaks!!)

now the question in the OP is clever (not sure if it was intensional) because the issue not so much "disproving evolution" as it is proving it.

with that in mind, lets take the eye ball. obviously it didnt just evolve from a pimple overnight. so i ask what did the eyeball evolve from? what was it and what purpose did it serve before becoming an eyeball?

The tree thing does not disprove evolution, it merely says that a tree that has evolved to a climate will better survive in that climate than a tree that hasn't.

Yes evolution is based on beneficial mutations. Your just using the word mutant and freak as a way to make it sound bad.

It pretty much has been proven. There are over 20,000 peer reviewed papers on it. There are 0 peer reviewed papers on creationism.

The eyeball is one of the few things that creationists rely on to say that evolution is wrong, because it is a fairly difficult topic to explain. To make it extremely simple, being able to detect light is beneficial, no doubt about it. 1/1000 of an eye is more beneficial than being completely blind. All it the eye started from was a flat area of skin with light sensors, which over time it gets more concave in order to see better. This arch is bent more and more over time until it is focused. Of course an animal with better vision will survive better.

try watching this video, and click on it to get to the youtube page, then look at the related videos and watch the series. I think there are 3 parts. It is pretty easy to understand and easily shows natural selection.
flag WasabiJim
Posted: Aug 16, 2009 at 23:59 Quote
i think you got me wrong.
it seems people think that you have to be one or the other, that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive and therefore if you dont believe in one it automatically means you subscribe to the other. i didnt mention anything about supporting creationism but am i right in assuming that you think i do? what i or anyone supports should have absolutely no relevance is regards to "disproving" a concept. that concept has to stand in its own merit. with that in mind their are too many holed it the theory of evolution for me to swollow.

the tree example is one of devolution not evolution as the tree spieses has actually lost not gained new traits. and your response illustrates how many get this confused.

there is more to the eyeball than just the eye, there is the optic nerve, and the parts of the brain needed to compute the electrical impulses. but the body is full of similar examples all integrated into each and pretty much useless unless they all work correctly. And take the most basic protein in body's cells, it forms in what has been described as a random occurrence with the odds of taking place the same as a pokie machine that is a mile wide spinning up the jackpot everytime. (Bill Btyson, 2003,A Short History of Nearly Everything).

"It pretty much has been proven. There are over 20,000 peer reviewed papers on it. There are 0 peer reviewed papers on creationism."

this is a big call and further more just because something is published in a peer reviewed journal doesnt make it "proven," i know its hard to believe as everything posted on PB is certified fact...
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Aug 17, 2009 at 0:58 Quote
WasabiJim wrote:
i think you got me wrong.
it seems people think that you have to be one or the other, that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive and therefore if you dont believe in one it automatically means you subscribe to the other. i didnt mention anything about supporting creationism but am i right in assuming that you think i do? what i or anyone supports should have absolutely no relevance is regards to "disproving" a concept. that concept has to stand in its own merit. with that in mind their are too many holed it the theory of evolution for me to swollow.

the tree example is one of devolution not evolution as the tree spieses has actually lost not gained new traits. and your response illustrates how many get this confused.

there is more to the eyeball than just the eye, there is the optic nerve, and the parts of the brain needed to compute the electrical impulses. but the body is full of similar examples all integrated into each and pretty much useless unless they all work correctly. And take the most basic protein in body's cells, it forms in what has been described as a random occurrence with the odds of taking place the same as a pokie machine that is a mile wide spinning up the jackpot everytime. (Bill Btyson, 2003,A Short History of Nearly Everything).

"It pretty much has been proven. There are over 20,000 peer reviewed papers on it. There are 0 peer reviewed papers on creationism."

this is a big call and further more just because something is published in a peer reviewed journal doesnt make it "proven," i know its hard to believe as everything posted on PB is certified fact...

Yes it should stand with its own merit. Also generally people who don't like evolution are creationists, so thats why I assumed you are a creationist.

I disagree. Evolution is about species changing and adapting to suit their environment. Thus we have to go back to how that tree got those roots in the first place.

You might be finding holes in the THEORY of evolution, but what I am arguing is the very idea that organisms evolve.

Don't think of the CHANCE of something happening, because as long as there is a chance, it will eventually happen.

Ok, when there are 20,000 peer reviewed papers on something, the "This could be true" meter bumps up a little bit.
flag natephillips
Posted: Aug 17, 2009 at 15:15 Quote
WasabiJim wrote:
the tree example is one of devolution not evolution as the tree spieses has actually lost not gained new traits. and your response illustrates how many get this confused
Let me give you an example of how evolution results in the creation of new traits and species.

A population of squirrels live on one side of a river, running through a valley. This particular population of squirrels have never been able to cross the river. A tree falls, bridging the river. Some squirrels cross the tree and start living on the other side. The other side has a specific type of acorn not found on the original side as well as new types of foliage. The tree decays and the river widens after some years, making contact between the two populations of squirrels (the newly formed one and the original one) impossible.

Time passes, and the two populations evolve independently of each other (no interbreeding of populations) thanks to natural selection. The squirrels who crossed the river have evolved to blend in to the different foliage with a different fur color and a nee type of teeth help them eat the unique acorn found on that side.

The result is to different species of squirrel, each with a different set of traits suited for their different environments.
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Aug 17, 2009 at 15:33 Quote
pinkboyo wrote:
WasabiJim wrote:
the tree example is one of devolution not evolution as the tree spieses has actually lost not gained new traits. and your response illustrates how many get this confused
Let me give you an example of how evolution results in the creation of new traits and species.

A population of squirrels live on one side of a river, running through a valley. This particular population of squirrels have never been able to cross the river. A tree falls, bridging the river. Some squirrels cross the tree and start living on the other side. The other side has a specific type of acorn not found on the original side as well as new types of foliage. The tree decays and the river widens after some years, making contact between the two populations of squirrels (the newly formed one and the original one) impossible.

Time passes, and the two populations evolve independently of each other (no interbreeding of populations) thanks to natural selection. The squirrels who crossed the river have evolved to blend in to the different foliage with a different fur color and a nee type of teeth help them eat the unique acorn found on that side.

The result is to different species of squirrel, each with a different set of traits suited for their different environments.

Ah thats like the salamanders that run down the coast and sierra navada
flag WasabiJim
Posted: Aug 17, 2009 at 18:11 Quote
yes and no
take the domestic dog. the irish wolf hound has been selectively breed to develop given traits. the toy you see paris hilton carrying around has gone thru the same breeding process but in almost the opposite direction. they have completely different characteristics yet they are actually still the same species. all that has happened is at the genetic level.

how the squirrels on the other side become a new species with different chromosomes and DNA and all that stuff that defines a species is where things get hazy. the concept is sound and logical but the details on how it happens at the cellular, reproductive, DNA at all them levels is still a subject of contention.

the salamanders on the other hand, yes are different species
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Aug 17, 2009 at 20:48 Quote
WasabiJim wrote:
yes and no
take the domestic dog. the irish wolf hound has been selectively breed to develop given traits. the toy you see paris hilton carrying around has gone thru the same breeding process but in almost the opposite direction. they have completely different characteristics yet they are actually still the same species. all that has happened is at the genetic level.

how the squirrels on the other side become a new species with different chromosomes and DNA and all that stuff that defines a species is where things get hazy. the concept is sound and logical but the details on how it happens at the cellular, reproductive, DNA at all them levels is still a subject of contention.

the salamanders on the other hand, yes are different species

Yet they can mate at the top where they meet. But not at the bottomish level where they haven't seen each other for a LONG time
flag The916infidell
Posted: Sep 30, 2009 at 0:28 Quote
Termenaitor wrote:
gibson19 wrote:
Yes I realize that theories are widely accepted... I'm just saying the way you put it made it sound like there is no room for interpretation or anything...

Personally I believe in evolution but with some supernatural power pushing it along...

As for the origin of organic matter... I'm aware you can recreate some simple amino acids... but until the 20 essential ones can be created I'll remain a skeptic... Currently the body produces I think 12 and 8 are found in nature... If they came from the moon my question remains (but apparently doesn't pertain to evolution)... How were there amino acids on the moon... Or how was there even a moon... but I don't think anyone has a reasonable argument for any of that... and until stuff like this is proven I'll continue being a skeptic of evolution without any sort of supernatural interference.

That's just you trying to push your stupid god theory into anything that disproves it..sorry but religious people, specificly christians, are the dumbest people on the planet.
yep christians are complete idiots . . heres a list of complete idiots that were christian
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
EDIT: Ok is it really that much harder to beleive in a God that created everything perfectly within 10k years . . or to beleive that trial and error over billions of years to create the "homo sapiens" and if we were evolving why isnt there more half monkey half people walking around? And why arent there vast amounts of remains in the earth showing vast amounts of half human half monkey remains?

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.018860
Mobile Version of Website