• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

liberal1

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
:fu I am against teaching creationism in class for the reason of seperation between church and state and if you are an atheist you are wasting your time. Also, I'd like to stick to facts than the statement that a magical being has pulled out of then air ( or space) the entire universe.
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
key this reply to #45

" As for miracles, they still happen today. I used to have very poor vision, and had extremely thick glasses to see clearly, but about 6 years ago, they were healed. It wasn't a slow process, or anything like that, it was instantaneous. I no longer wear glasses or contacts and can see as well or better than people who have never worn glasses. What explanation does evolution give for this? Creation provides a Creator who can still do things like that."

Yeah. Like you I had to wear thick glasses all my life and then all of a sudden I could see a lot better and use much weaker glasses. A miracle? No. Cataract surgery. ;)
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
key to #2

"First of all, I have not heard gravity explained as a theory, rather, a law. It is undeniable that two masses are attracted to one another proportionally to the amount of mass and the distance between the two. That is readily replicated in a laboratory, or in space. To compare evolution to gravity, as I have seen done quite often, btw, is a faulty analogy. Something that one argues is constantly changing cannot be compared with what never changes."

I'm afraid you're going to have to go back to calling gravity a theory, then. The latest astronomical observations show that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up. This means that either some other unknown force is acting or the "law" of gravity, like the theory of evolution, needs work.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Yes because we all know gravity is a theory.

Stop kidding yourself by hiding behind extremely stretched for arguments because you struggle to convince yourself there is a God that created us all. Miracles my ass.
 
J

Jufarius87

evolution has been altered so much since darwin created that it has lost too much credibility to be called fact as of yet

most skeltons that are "links" have been complied from numerous skeltons from all over the earth and slapped together

the most recent form of evolution requires postitive mutation that would benefit the creature (which is yet to be seen) only semi positive mutation in humans is sickle cell anaimia which prevents some african disease

you guys are missing way too much evidence to call your theories facts and unless something has no doubts what so ever it needs to be presented as theory

also i beleive that public school should emphasize learning about different religions from historical perspective
 

KBeta

New member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
36
Reaction score
1
Location
Seattle, WA
Jufarius87 said:
evolution has been altered so much since darwin created that it has lost too much credibility to be called fact as of yet most skeltons that are "links" have been complied from numerous skeltons from all over the earth and slapped together
No credible anthropologist would call anything a 'link.' That term is only used in the sloppy media coverage. Additionally, your claim that skeletons from different parts of the world are merged together is a fabrication. If not, show us your examples of such fraud.

Jufarius87 said:
the most recent form of evolution requires postitive mutation that would benefit the creature (which is yet to be seen) only semi positive mutation in humans is sickle cell anaimia which prevents some african disease
Again, you don't have your facts straight. Beneficial mutations have been documented in the lab over and over again. Endless experiments with fruit flies have supported this point of view. BTW, the "african disease" you refer to is malaria. The gene in question provides immunity to malaria, but it also makes the carrier more susceptible to sickle cell anemia. On the whole it is a benefit, but it does have the potential to go bad. Nobody ever claimed that mutations are all good or all bad.

Jufarius87 said:
you guys are missing way too much evidence to call your theories facts and unless something has no doubts what so ever it needs to be presented as theory
There are very few absolute laws in science. There are lots of theories. Just because something is theory doesn't mean that there are no facts to support it. Relativity is a theory. Plate tectonics is a theory. 100% certainty is an impossibility, but such is the nature of science.

Jufarius87 said:
also i beleive that public school should emphasize learning about different religions from historical perspective
Agreed. Religion should be taught in a philosophy or religion class. However, religion has absolutely no place in a science class. Let the students integrate the subjects as they see fit.
 

nope

New member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
Austria
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For those who still think that you can't watch evolution on the homo sapiens sapiens, inform yourself about Hemoglobin.
There have already occured mutations witch are better than the normal one.
 

Nemo

Banned
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
5
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Genesis Revised

In the beginning, God made the heaven and the earth; and He saw that it was good. Then God made man in His own image to rule over all living things; but He was drunk at the time, and made a botched job of it. Then, while He still had a hangover, God created woman, which just made things worse. As a consolation, God let Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. But not satisfied to live in a paradise, the damn fools lost it! And ever since then, almost everything has gone to the Devil.
 

petrsykora39

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Jufarius87 said:
evolution has been altered so much since darwin created that it has lost too much credibility to be called fact as of yet

most skeltons that are "links" have been complied from numerous skeltons from all over the earth and slapped together

the most recent form of evolution requires postitive mutation that would benefit the creature (which is yet to be seen) only semi positive mutation in humans is sickle cell anaimia which prevents some african disease

you guys are missing way too much evidence to call your theories facts and unless something has no doubts what so ever it needs to be presented as theory

also i beleive that public school should emphasize learning about different religions from historical perspective

To me, the Speckled Moth (English Peppered Moth) and Darwin's Finches are excellent examples of mutations within creatures that have proved to be quite beneficial.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The reason you don't see much evolution with humans any longer is because medical technology, and our ability to alter our environments allows us to escape the process of natural selection. We readily change our environment as opposed to letting natural selection take its toll, and force us to change in lieu of the environment.
 

zk655

New member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"First of all, I have not heard gravity explained as a theory, rather, a law. It is undeniable that two masses are attracted to one another proportionally to the amount of mass and the distance between the two. That is readily replicated in a laboratory, or in space. To compare evolution to gravity, as I have seen done quite often, btw, is a faulty analogy. Something that one argues is constantly changing cannot be compared with what never changes.
"...........................

The two are comparable in the sense that both are scientific theory. Simply put, the term Scientific Law means that the theory has been verified so many times that few people would refute it. Regardless, gravity in a scientific sense, is still a theory. A WELL verified theory but a theory nonetheless.

The theory of gravity is slow to change simply because it has been verified through countless experimentation over many years. Had you entered into a discussion during the period in which Newton was formulating his theory or when Aristotle was describing items at rest in their natural place, you would have seen a rapidly changing stream of thought. Even today, if you were to ask a physicist who was studying string theory and a physicist who leaned more towards classic newtonian physics you might get very different explanations regarding the principles and functions of gravity.

Relatively speaking, evolution is a new theory. Due to the complexity of trying to understand living (and past living) biological systems and the environment around them, new information is continuously being suggested, checked, and refuted or accepted. This is the sign of a healthy dynamic field of Scientific study and research.

Regardless, both are accepted scientific theories.

"Who has observed evolution? I have yet to have been presented with convincing evidence that there were stages between ape and man, or fish and ape, or amoeba to bird. Even the charts that I'm sure many of us have seen is based primarily on speculation and on hoaxes"..........................................

This depends on what your definition of "observing evolution means". If you mean that nobody has gone back in time 3 billion years and done a first hand geological, paleontological, chemical, zoological, botanical, and biochemical makeup of the entire history of the biotic and non-biotic earth than you would be correct. However many aspects of the theory of evolution have been confirmed.

1)The fact that organisms adapt to surrounding environmental pressure has been observed time and time again. At this point even most proponents of ID and Creation Science acknowledge this. Famous examples have been used and attacked over and over again. They include the pepper moth, adaptation to antibiotics by bacteria, beak sizes of "Darwin's Finches", environmental clinal species in plants, morphological and physiological adaptations by members of the same species of animals in differing environmental conditions, and ring species. These are examples off of the top of my head. All of these have come under attack by opponents of natural selection and have successfully been refuted by experiments conducted within the framework of the scientific method. That doesn't mean that you as an individual have to accept these findings. Its a free country and you have the right to believe what you want. However, it doesn't change the fact that these adaptations have been scientifically tested and confirmed. Therefore making the process of natural selection (a component of the theory of evolution) a sound Scientific theory.

2) Genetics and an understanding of the mechanisms of inheritance have helped us to understand how heritable changes accumulate within a population. It is a common belief that evolutionary change is driven only by deleterious point mutations. This isn't true. Deleterious point mutations are normally disastrous and if this were the only mechanism driving natural selection, the theory would indeed be in trouble. However, the critics never seem to take into account neutral mutation, chromosomal translocation, sexual reproduction, random genetic drift, and immigration and emigration of organisms into and out of a population. All of which change gene frequency and gene pool makeup (the ingredients that natural selection operates on).

3) The fossil record, which is continuously under attack by opponents as not containing any evidence to support evolution is also false. The fossil record of the transition to modern horses from a much smaller anscestor is fairly complete and can be viewed at many museums of natural history. The transition of earlier ancestors to modern day man is also fairly well preserved. It is also often supposed that there are no transitional fossils that show the jump of reptiles to mammals. While it is true that there are no fossils showing half reptile and half mammal, there are thousands if not millions that show gradual transitions from common ancestors to both modern day reptiles and modern day mammals. Scientists aren't looking for missing links and "hopeful monsters" to provide the norm, in fact the exact opposite is true. The theory of Evolution is based on gradual, NON-RANDOM adaptation and change to surrounding environmental pressure, not freakish immediate transitions from one organismal class to the next.

"I have seen no evidence showing that evolution has any more credibility that intelligent design. The arguments typically associated with it are not based on evidence, but on speculation. No record of evolution exists prior to the middle of the 19th century"................................

My problem doesn't rest with the notion of Intelligent Design. It is an absolute possibility that the universe was designed by an intelligent creator. However, this is not a question that science can or was ever intended to answer.

Amidst the scientific community, especially within an academic surrounding, evolution should have more credibility, simply because its components CAN and HAVE been tested and observed through the process of the scientific method.

Because Intelligent Design and Creation Science rest their theories on the notion of a supreme entity that can never be tested or falsified, the ideas can never be subjected to the rigors and scrutiny of the Scientific method and therefore can never be considered Science.

They should not be taught in a science class because they are not science.

This is not to disparage faith or its importance to people. Faith is important and necessary to humanity. So is science. However it has to be understood that they answer seperate questions.
 

My_Nation

New member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I see evidence of human eveloution all over the place...

The height of man over the past 80 years, the foot sizes of humans, the Intellectual level, the weight of humans (not just here in the US), the strength of humans, and even the hand length of humans has increased over just the past 80 years...

So why is it so hard to believe that over 20 million years a fish could not turn into a human.

I think this is basically what ZK655 was saying....
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think the theory of evolution is just that- only a theory. What natural need could lead antelopes or wild goats to develope curled horns? Or birds to have blue or red feathers? And what about exotic fish?
 

walrus

Member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
191
Reaction score
15
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I personally accept evolutionary theory for the most part, although I do subscribe to an idea of intelligent design. That we could have arrived at the variety and specialization of organisms and groups of organisms purely through random chance seems very unlikely. For example...

The giraffe. Purely Darwinian evolution tells us that giraffe's necks extended as a response to the environmental pressure of food. They needed longer necks to reach higher leaves. So, presumably, these short necked giraffes were living in an area in which leaves were growing higher. Therefore, through sheer random chance, a short-necked giraffe was born with a long neck. He was able to more successfully breed, and thus giraffes gained longer and longer necks. Apparently, the leaves got higher very slowly, or the giraffes would have either died out or moved to an area with lower leaves. Normally, when an animals environment changes, they either fail to adapt and die or move into an area where the environment is more favourable. Never in our observation have we seen a dramatic, random mutation in response to environmental pressure such as is suggested with the giraffe.

The whale. It is generally accepted that whales were once land animals, as their flipper structure resembles land mammals phalanges. Evolution requires that these land animals return to the sea at some point. Why? Does it seem unlikely to anyone else that within one or two generations whales converted from land animals to sea animals? Again, the most common outcome of a dramatic change in one's environment is extinction. Are we suggesting that there was a transitional form similar to a mammalian amphibian? What could have possibly caused a land animal to transform within a few generations into a sea animal?

Another interesting hole in evolution is the apparent absence of transitional forms. If these changes took place very slowly, then the fossil record should be filled with amphibian whales, mid-necked giraffes, and other biotypes linking a present day organism with it's ancestor. The absence of these transitional forms seems to suggest a rapid change in these animals. But evolution does not allow a rapid, dramatic, favourable change in an animal. In secular evolution these changes must be random. For every favourable adaptation there should be literally thousands of unfavourable adaptations.

Therefore, I believe the Earth to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years old. I believe that life evolved as the fossil record seems to suggest. I just believe the fossil record itself indicates that there was an intelligent mind behind the engine of creation.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Originally posted by Walrus
Another interesting hole in evolution is the apparent absence of transitional forms. If these changes took place very slowly, then the fossil record should be filled with amphibian whales, mid-necked giraffes, and other biotypes linking a present day organism with it's ancestor. The absence of these transitional forms seems to suggest a rapid change in these animals. But evolution does not allow a rapid, dramatic, favourable change in an animal. In secular evolution these changes must be random. For every favourable adaptation there should be literally thousands of unfavourable adaptations

I can find alot of holes in that theory. For science to suggest that man comes from the monkey, and so on, is totally stupid. Many people were "spoonfed" that this learning is acceptable as truth. The earth is too complicated to come by random chance, or necessasity. It is simply the fruit of an outside intervention.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Another interesting hole in evolution is the apparent absence of transitional forms. If these changes took place very slowly, then the fossil record should be filled with amphibian whales, mid-necked giraffes, and other biotypes linking a present day organism with it's ancestor. The absence of these transitional forms seems to suggest a rapid change in these animals. But evolution does not allow a rapid, dramatic, favourable change in an animal. In secular evolution these changes must be random. For every favourable adaptation there should be literally thousands of unfavourable adaptations

hence the theory of punctuated equilibrium which explains these problems with evolution, as well as some genetic and biological phenomena that went against a slow process of evolution.

curled horns? Or birds to have blue or red feathers? And what about exotic fish?

Take into account mate selection, strength, and advertising danger. Thats what colors ended up representing. Imagine back in the day when there were brown birds. However one male bird aquired an orangish tint. All the female birds were attracted to this bird over the other. Thus the evolutionary process skyrockets from there. Other colors can be accounted for by blending into the environment. A previously red bird who aquires a darker brown tint that is suitable for teh wooded environment will fare better than a bright red bird.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The giraffe. Purely Darwinian evolution tells us that giraffe's necks extended as a response to the environmental pressure of food. They needed longer necks to reach higher leaves. So, presumably, these short necked giraffes were living in an area in which leaves were growing higher. Therefore, through sheer random chance, a short-necked giraffe was born with a long neck. He was able to more successfully breed, and thus giraffes gained longer and longer necks. Apparently, the leaves got higher very slowly, or the giraffes would have either died out or moved to an area with lower leaves. Normally, when an animals environment changes, they either fail to adapt and die or move into an area where the environment is more favourable. Never in our observation have we seen a dramatic, random mutation in response to environmental pressure such as is suggested with the giraffe.

not really, trees are tall right? short-giraffes took leaves from the bottom part of the trees. However, under competition as giraffe populations grew, those who could reach higher had a competitive advantage over all the other giraffes. As short-neck giraffes grew, food became scarce in the area (leaves were scarce). Trees would become taller as an evolutionary response, thus giraffes would have to become smaller. This process is a lot faster than you think. Think about how humans are constantly getting taller.

The whale. It is generally accepted that whales were once land animals, as their flipper structure resembles land mammals phalanges. Evolution requires that these land animals return to the sea at some point. Why? Does it seem unlikely to anyone else that within one or two generations whales converted from land animals to sea animals? Again, the most common outcome of a dramatic change in one's environment is extinction. Are we suggesting that there was a transitional form similar to a mammalian amphibian? What could have possibly caused a land animal to transform within a few generations into a sea animal?

its phenomenal...almost like a puzzle. Imagine mammals living in a hot environment near the sea. Food is scarce, and the main source of food is seafood. These animals have very little hair due to the heat, and tend to spend a lot of time in the water. Evolution could easily favor those animals that were able to swim further out into sea to gather food vs. those who would stay in shallow water. Possible isn't it? Whales are very young animals on the evolutionary scale, so such a process must have taken millions of ears.

Therefore, I believe the Earth to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years old. I believe that life evolved as the fossil record seems to suggest. I just believe the fossil record itself indicates that there was an intelligent mind behind the engine of creation.

very good, I too believe that an intelligent mind coudl have been behind the mechanism of evolution. However, in science we do not factor in the idea of an intelligent being. Why? Because it is too explainable a factor. There are so many phenomena in the universe we just don't understand. If scientists did factor in the idea of an intelligent being, couldn't they just epxplain it all by saying that it is the result of a God?
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
nkgupta80 said:
not really, trees are tall right? short-giraffes took leaves from the bottom part of the trees. However, under competition as giraffe populations grew, those who could reach higher had a competitive advantage over all the other giraffes. As short-neck giraffes grew, food became scarce in the area (leaves were scarce). Trees would become taller as an evolutionary response, thus giraffes would have to become smaller. This process is a lot faster than you think. Think about how humans are constantly getting taller.



its phenomenal...almost like a puzzle. Imagine mammals living in a hot environment near the sea. Food is scarce, and the main source of food is seafood. These animals have very little hair due to the heat, and tend to spend a lot of time in the water. Evolution could easily favor those animals that were able to swim further out into sea to gather food vs. those who would stay in shallow water. Possible isn't it? Whales are very young animals on the evolutionary scale, so such a process must have taken millions of ears.



very good, I too believe that an intelligent mind coudl have been behind the mechanism of evolution. However, in science we do not factor in the idea of an intelligent being. Why? Because it is too explainable a factor. There are so many phenomena in the universe we just don't understand. If scientists did factor in the idea of an intelligent being, couldn't they just epxplain it all by saying that it is the result of a God?

How could an intelligent mind, or guiding force possibly be behind evolution?
As Einstein said, there cannot be a watch without a watch-maker. All of you who believe that we come from the monkey through a slow, evolutionary process, believe that the beautiful watch we are, has built itself by accident. It is a bit like saying that if we put all the components of a watch together in a bag and shook it around for awhile, we would eventually get a perfect working watch. Try a million times if you want.....
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
very common misconception in understanding evolution. Evolution and natural selection is not at all a mixing of a bag. Evolution states that life and species as we know them are constantly modifying themselves based on the environment and have been constantly environment. This isn't random shake of a bag of chemicals, but a careful millions-of-years building block process. Hardly an accident. The only things that are random are genetic mutations.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
nkgupta80 said:
very common misconception in understanding evolution. Evolution and natural selection is not at all a mixing of a bag. Evolution states that life and species as we know them are constantly modifying themselves based on the environment and have been constantly environment. This isn't random shake of a bag of chemicals, but a careful millions-of-years building block process. Hardly an accident. The only things that are random are genetic mutations.

I agree about some of the elaborated theories that scientists come up with that state the first living organisms created on earth were unicellular, which in turn, gave rise to more complex forms. But this did Not happen by chance! I think that there is little chance of a series of accidents producing such a large variety of life forms- the colors of birds and their extensive mating rituals, or as I said earlier, the shape of certain antelope horns.

Your genetic mutations, are nothing more than organic deprivations, deficiencies, and losses of pigments. Or they could be doubling of pre-existing organs. Mutations almost all the time, result in hereditary illnesses, deteriorations of survival value, and genetic monstrousities. The chromosome plan of living organisms is really complex and any modification of this structure will result in its disorganization. An accident like this can never increase organization but will only result in damage in the same way as throwing a watch on the ground can never increase its precision, or hitting a computer with a stone will not give it extra calculating properties. And the time factor will not change anything since what was impossible yesterday is still true today.
 

sargasm

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
walrus said:
I personally accept evolutionary theory for the most part, although I do subscribe to an idea of intelligent design. That we could have arrived at the variety and specialization of organisms and groups of organisms purely through random chance seems very unlikely. For example...

The giraffe. Purely Darwinian evolution tells us that giraffe's necks extended as a response to the environmental pressure of food. They needed longer necks to reach higher leaves. So, presumably, these short necked giraffes were living in an area in which leaves were growing higher. Therefore, through sheer random chance, a short-necked giraffe was born with a long neck. He was able to more successfully breed, and thus giraffes gained longer and longer necks. Apparently, the leaves got higher very slowly, or the giraffes would have either died out or moved to an area with lower leaves. Normally, when an animals environment changes, they either fail to adapt and die or move into an area where the environment is more favourable. Never in our observation have we seen a dramatic, random mutation in response to environmental pressure such as is suggested with the giraffe.

The whale. It is generally accepted that whales were once land animals, as their flipper structure resembles land mammals phalanges. Evolution requires that these land animals return to the sea at some point. Why? Does it seem unlikely to anyone else that within one or two generations whales converted from land animals to sea animals? Again, the most common outcome of a dramatic change in one's environment is extinction. Are we suggesting that there was a transitional form similar to a mammalian amphibian? What could have possibly caused a land animal to transform within a few generations into a sea animal?

Another interesting hole in evolution is the apparent absence of transitional forms. If these changes took place very slowly, then the fossil record should be filled with amphibian whales, mid-necked giraffes, and other biotypes linking a present day organism with it's ancestor. The absence of these transitional forms seems to suggest a rapid change in these animals. But evolution does not allow a rapid, dramatic, favourable change in an animal. In secular evolution these changes must be random. For every favourable adaptation there should be literally thousands of unfavourable adaptations.

Therefore, I believe the Earth to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years old. I believe that life evolved as the fossil record seems to suggest. I just believe the fossil record itself indicates that there was an intelligent mind behind the engine of creation.

just by reading your take on darwins theory and the giraffe, its clear you didnt get it at all. You dont have a clear grasp on what survival of the fittest is so look it up because i dont feel like posting it again and again.
 

Thinker

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
831
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sargasm said:
just by reading your take on darwins theory and the giraffe, its clear you didnt get it at all. You dont have a clear grasp on what survival of the fittest is so look it up because i dont feel like posting it again and again.

I can't resist...

Purely Darwinian evolution tells us that giraffe's necks extended as a response to the environmental pressure of food.
Does it? Please give the reference. There are many possible different
reasons. For example, the long neck could have evolved in response to
sexual preference, rather like the peacock's tail.

What could have possibly caused a land animal to transform within a few generations into a sea animal?

Absolutely nothing. Please give a reference to where someone (other than a
creationist) claims that such gross changes happen "within a few
generations". Even better, read your own words: "But evolution does not
allow a rapid, dramatic, favourable change in an animal"

Another interesting hole in evolution is the apparent absence of transitional forms.

Not at all. First, here's a possible explanation for your claim: Most animals are
well-fitted to their environment, so evolutionary forces are small. The
environment changes and the pressures increase, so evolution goes faster
until we are left with well-fitted animals and evolution slows. The result is
long periods (and I mean long) with little change followed by fairly rapid (i.e.,
hundreds of generations) of change. The time when intermediate forms exist
is small in comparison to the total time. This indicates that the chance of
fossils (very small to start with) is minimal in the case of intermediate forms.

Second, the point is actually moot, as there is evidence of
intermediate forms. Try here for a simple start:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html
 

zk655

New member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
kal-el said:
I can find alot of holes in that theory. For science to suggest that man comes from the monkey, and so on, is totally stupid. Many people were "spoonfed" that this learning is acceptable as truth. The earth is too complicated to come by random chance, or necessasity. It is simply the fruit of an outside intervention.

I think your biggest problem with evolution is that you really don't understand it. That's okay, very few people do. Not because it's a difficult concept to learn, but simply because they dont care to try.

However, if you are going to attack a well verified field of science, you should probably at least understand how it works. I can't help you. I'm simply a former biology student. I can tell you the same old stuff about natural selection and the peppered moth and gradual transition that everyone has heard a million times, but that isn't going to change your understanding or your mindset.

Find out for yourself!!!!

Go to a natural history museum and ask questions. If your a student, I'm sure that your school has a biology department. Find a professor and ask him/her questions. Better yet take a course in biology and ask your questions in class. If you have a bad instructor find somebody else. If you don't want to do that, go to a bookstore or the library and read about it.

If you are still unconvinced than at least you will have an informed opinion as to why you dont believe it and you will know that your knowledge was not "spoonfed" to you.
 

Thinker

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
831
Reaction score
71
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
kal-el said:
For science to suggest that man comes from the monkey, and so on, is totally stupid.
I quite agree. Which is why science makes no such suggestion; it actually
comes from creationists trying (and failing) to debunk evolution. Evolution
suggests that man and monkeys all evolved from a common ancestor that was
neither man nor monkey.

I am sure everyone would take creationists a little more seriously (but only a
little) if they actually bothered to get the facts right first.
 

kal-el

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
3,412
Reaction score
8
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
zk655 said:
I think your biggest problem with evolution is that you really don't understand it. That's okay, very few people do. Not because it's a difficult concept to learn, but simply because they dont care to try.

However, if you are going to attack a well verified field of science, you should probably at least understand how it works. I can't help you. I'm simply a former biology student. I can tell you the same old stuff about natural selection and the peppered moth and gradual transition that everyone has heard a million times, but that isn't going to change your understanding or your mindset.

Find out for yourself!!!!

Go to a natural history museum and ask questions. If your a student, I'm sure that your school has a biology department. Find a professor and ask him/her questions. Better yet take a course in biology and ask your questions in class. If you have a bad instructor find somebody else. If you don't want to do that, go to a bookstore or the library and read about it.

If you are still unconvinced than at least you will have an informed opinion as to why you dont believe it and you will know that your knowledge was not "spoonfed" to you.

I'm sure if I went to a natural history museum, and asked questions, I'm more than convinced that they would give me one-sided answers. Supporting evolution Only.

I've already taken biology, that's how I'm coming to these conclusions.
 
Top Bottom