Evolution:HMMM

[TheWay]

My position is that Macro Evolution is a false theory. Please make arguments opposing this statement. I will make arguments in support of it after a few have posted as I think it will be less intimidating that way and people will feel encouraged by others of the same view to speak out.

Let me clarify so this discussion is not mucked up.

1. Macro- Evolution = "the evolution of higher taxa" Or in other words the changing from one species to a completely different one. Feel free to argue this definition but I thought it was a reasonable one.
2. I am not arguing against natural selection as a matter a fact I support it. Although not in the fashion you may be accustomed to.
3. This is not a question of what has created man and nature but rather if Evolution can be supported.
4. I know many of you will instantly jump on the rhetoric bandwagon and call me a creationist and attack the idea of God, but that is not the place for that as I have made no statements in this post nor given any reason for you to go that direction.
5. If you cannot support evolution and this discussion up sets you and may drive you to break the rules and boundaries of this topic please just post somewhere else.
6. I don’t know if this is possible but I request that any posts that separate from the topic be moved somewhere else, possibly to the I don’t follow directions section or I can’t debate central.

If for some reason you think we should be discussing if there is evidence for Creationism or for Intelligent Design please make a post accordingly and I will be happy to post there. Please do not be offended by this post because this is absolutely the role of science to take the reigning theory and scrutinize it, hence proving or disproving its validity. I understand that it is taught as fact in many schools however it is still just a theory and therefore absolutely in the realm of discussion.

[n3M351s]

The Evolution Theory is just that; a theory [Definition of Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture]. Charles Darwin traveled the world and wrote his findings 'The Origin of Species' in which he concluded that all species of life evolved over time from one common ancestor through the process of natural selection. This theory originated from one man who put together his views and ideas - now, in this day and age, half the world seems to believe it. You could compare it to Scientology, it was created by one man and now has a huge following. Evolution seems like a completely illogical idea to me.

If Evolution 'was' real where did these first organisms come from? Evolutionists cannot explained how these organisms just appeared out of nothingness and started the so called evolutionary process. I'm no scientist but how can every single thing that is in this world originate from a single cell? How can that cell turn into earth, water, plants, trees and animals. How can the essence of life be created?

According to evolution this is how human 'evolved':
- 4 billion years: Simple cells (prokaryotes)
- 3.9 billion years: Cells resembling prokaryotes appear
- 2.5 billion years: First organisms to utilize oxygen
- 2.1 billion years: More complex cells appear: the eukaryotes
- 1.2 billion years: Sexual reproduction evolves, leading to faster evolution
- 900 million years: Proterospongia - ancestor of all animals (looks like a cell)
- 600 million years: The earliest multicellular animal; a sponge-like creature
- 580 million years: The movement of all animals may have started with cnidarians
- 550 million years: Flatworms are the earliest animals to have a brain (looks like a flat worm)
- 540 million years: Acorn worms which have a circulatory system (looks like a worm)
- 530 million years: Pikaia; believed to be the ancestor of all chordates and vertebrates (looks like an eel)
- 505 million years: The first vertebrates appear: the ostracoderms, jawless fish.
- 480 million years: Placodermi were prehistoric fishes. Placoderms were the first of the jawed fishes (a cross eel-fish)
- 400 million years: First Coelacanth appears
- 375 million years: Tiktaalik is a genus of sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fishes
- 365 million years: Some fresh water lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygii) develop legs and give rise to the Tetrapoda (looks like normal fish)
- 315 million years: Acanthostega & Ichthyostega; The first vertebrates capable of coming onto land (a hybrid between a fish and an amphibian)
- 300 million years: Hylonomus is the earliest known reptile (looks like a normal lizard)
- 256 million years: Phtinosuchus (looks like a monitor or goanna)
- 220 million years: Cynodonts evolved more mammal-like characteristics. Eucynodonts came the first mammals. (looks like a shrew)
- 125 million years: Eomaia scansoria - a eutherian mammal. (looks like a mouse/rat)
- 65 million years: A group of small, nocturnal and arboreal, insect-eating mammals called the Euarchonta begins a speciation that will lead to the primate, treeshrew and flying lemur orders. (looks like a mouse/cat/monkey)
- 40 million years: Primates diverge into suborders Strepsirrhini and Haplorrhini
- 30 million years: Haplorrhini splits into infraorders Platyrrhini and Catarrhini (looks like normal monkeys)
- 25 million years: Catarrhini splits into 2 superfamilies, Old World monkeys and apes
- 15 million years: Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the gibbon (lesser apes)
- 13 million years: Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors the orangutan
- 10 million years: Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the chimpanzees
- 1.8 million years: Homo erectus evolves in Africa (walk upright)
- 355 thousand years: Homo-neanderthalensis
- 150 thousand years: Homo sapiens (looks like normal people)
- 70 thousand years: Development of speech
- 40 thousand years: Migration to Australia and Europe

Long story short: cell>cells>organisms>spongecells>flatworm>worm>eel>eelfish>fish>amphibians>lizards>monitors>shrew>mouserat>mousemoney>monkeys>(just about every kind of primate there is)>apes>orangutans>chimpanzees>humans
I don't know how anyone in the right frame of mind could possibly believe that.

If humans did 'evolve' along this path where's all the proof? Why are there no fossils of hybrid species? Why are their no hybrid species living today? Surly if men came from ape (the most recent of developments) there would be remains all over the earth and still half ape half men walking around today.

I believe that everything in this world has been created by Intelligent Design. How could everything on earth be created randomly by accident when some cells appeared out of no where and started turning into things? It cant.

What came first the chicken or the egg?

[TheWay]

@n3M351s, nicely said here is some more suport material for your well stated argument.



Man I wish I had my copy of Origin of the Species, I guess I lent it out but I know at some point in there Darwin suggests that if the fossil record of the intermediaries isn’t found his theory absolutely falls apart.

I do have this great quote though. "I am quite conscious," he wrote to Asa Gray on the eve of the publication of the Origin, "that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." (From a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor)

The Cambrian Explosion is also a problem for the idea of gradual Macroevolution. The Cambrian Explosion is the sudden appearance of a great quantity and diversity of life.

““Cambrian explosion” refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man. Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.”

[Kit-Fox]

Removed

[Thriller]

lol the way plz reply to my human nature thread.

Evolution makes more sense then god did it.

God is dead and we killed him.

this guy sums up my feelings pretty well on your ignorant attempt to use religion to challenge science

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=HXMxZxWqV ... re=related

Here is one minus my emotions
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k

[TheWay]

lol the way plz reply to my human nature thread.

Evolution makes more sense then god did it.

God is dead and we killed him.

this guy sums up my feelings pretty well on your ignorant attempt to use religion to challenge science

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=HXMxZxWqV ... re=related

Here is one minus my emotions
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k

Your argument is very weak in that you are deflecting by attacking an argument I havn't even made in this post. I encourage you if evolution is true then answer this post correctly. I absolutly will answer your human nature post but I do post alot in these threads trying my best to be accurate in what I say and it takes time to do correctly in so many different arguments. I do know alot of all things but I am not a vault and from time to time require some rest for my little brain lol

You may still believe that God did not create the universe but that does not change the fact that Macro Evolution has no scientific evidense. If it does please answer the post correctly and follow the directions.

I ahve to go now to drive to pick my sister up from college for the weekend but when I ahve time I will post as much as possible in all the posts.

[Thriller]

fine. I really don't want to because then i have to consider your idea to have merit and that's more validity then it deserves.



here is the simplest and easiest way to understand how your wrong:

Basically we have interbred dog species for years and have developed the great daine and the chihuahua. There was no species resembling ether until we stepped in and began breading dogs for the characteristics we were looking for. Those two animals are physically unable to reproduce with each other now. Therefore micro evolution increased one in size and decreased the other. The two have evolved to a point where they can no longer interbreed and therefore can no longer share alleles. *Left to nature, they will branch out into two different species due to continued micro evolution .

*(Macro evolution)entire sentence

I had to search a while but here is a video that goes more into the science
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9xS9hX15C8

Its phenomenal(get it?)

[TheWay]

I appreciate the attempt but i am pretty sure anyone reading will see you simply pointed out an example of selective breeding which first of all has an intelligent factor to it namely us and second is not a matter of blind chance. Beyond that it is at the very best an example of micro evolution since both breeds are still dogs.

The phrase left to nature would imply the assertion of the process of natural selection which actually stunts any type of uncommon anomalies from occurring.

Case in point the famous evolutionary fruit fly that through "the miracle of evolution" grew another wing. Evolutionist have said this proves evolution because a new wing was formed which is a positive mutation and hence proves positive mutations are possible and then shows that evolution is plausible. What they fail to point out is that the wing is only that a useless wing with no other required elements to function and so because through a small mutation the fly is unable to well fly and so it would in nature and did in the lab die very quickly hence stunting the ability for the deformed fly to procreate.

Natural selection it is actually works to keep the fly in its normal status and makes the gradual mutation from one species to another impossible

Great source for those interested is a movie entitled The Icons of evolution; I dare you to watch it.

P.S. it is a scientific and scholarly work supported by many highly respected professors in the area of science

[Thriller]

lol, are you serious! Yes we were able to selectively breed dogs because we were smart enough to figure out that when two dogs with similar phenotypes bread they produced offspring with similar phenotypes to the parents. The fact that we played a role in it doesn't prove its not possible, It clearly shows it is (artificial speciation). Its and example of micro evolution leading to macro evolution. Did you even watch the video?.

Case in point the famous evolutionary fruit fly that through "the miracle of evolution" grew another wing. Evolutionist have said this proves evolution because a new wing was formed which is a positive mutation and hence proves positive mutations are possible and then shows that evolution is plausible. What they fail to point out is that the wing is only that a useless wing with no other required elements to function and so because through a small mutation the fly is unable to well fly and so it would in nature and did in the lab die very quickly hence stunting the ability for the deformed fly to procreate.

And you don't know what evolutionist said about anything at all or its impact on evolutionary theory. You simply politicize your arguments. Making false accusations, miss quoting, and wrong interpretations of the views counter to yours. That's why not one of you present your ideas at any scientific conference or symposium(you may be able to fool the less informed public but you can't pull the wool over educated eyes). They would tear your ideas to shreds and you would be left embarrassed since it would finally become apparent to you, that you have no idea what your talking about.

fact is; speciation has been observed.
and here is link to them all
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

i would write them out but the list would very long.......

The phrase left to nature would imply the assertion of the process of natural selection which actually stunts any type of uncommon anomalies from occurring.

Nature stunts genetic diversity. Is this what you beleive!!!! ARE YOU %^&*CKING KIDDING ME!!!!!

Great source for those interested is a movie entitled The Icons of evolution; I dare you to watch it.

P.S. it is a scientific and scholarly work supported by many highly respected professors in the area of science

Actually its backed by one "scholar" and i use the term loosely; Jonathan Wells. Who's "approach is riddled with errors, omissions, misrepresentations and selective quotations, and ignores anything (of which there is much) which counters his thesis." Very unscientific, but you would know that if you knew anything about science. This is the man who gave validity to his hypothesis by using essays by other real scholars and made "claim(s) that our criticism of these experiments casts strong doubt on Darwinism. But this characterization is false. All of us in the peppered moth debate agree that the moth story is a sound example of evolution produced by natural selection. My call for additional research on the moths has been wrongly characterized by creationists as revealing some fatal flaw in the theory of evolution. "

I think anyone can plainly Mr. Wells agenda.

NOW everyone watch this video by KEN MILLER who has been debating these succubus' for years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Your "WAY" our of your league on this one. You should probably quit now because HELL HATH NO FURRY GREATER THEN I.

[n3M351s]

Many species can adapt to new environments; this adaption is a natural characteristic of all life. Living things has always had the ability to adapt, then Darwin came along calling it Natural Selection and associated it with his theory "Evolution". Over time a species can change and become better suited to its environment, that's a natural occurrence and doesn't mean it has "Evolved" as according to "Evolution".

Breeding to make new subspecies? So what? That doesn't have anything to do with "Evolution" or this debate.

[TheWay]

@n3M351s, very well said


@Thriller,
You can say anything you wish including cursing at me wich points to your clear ignorance however you get upset because you still cannot support your own rhetoric.

It clearly shows it is (artificial speciation). Its and example of micro evolution leading to macro evolution. Did you even watch the video?.

Show me any evidence that links microevolution to macroevolution. Show me one piece of evidence beyond conjecture that supports this statement. One fossil record, one link. You can't, so don't insult me with your trival understanding of language just because you cannot support your own theory.

Secondly, you have yet to even attempt to respond to the issue of the cmabrian explosion or the lack of fossil evidence for intermediaries.

Let me be very clear I do not nor will I ever accept the F-bomb being used towards me it is both insulting and degrating to a truly valuable and worth while discussion. I will admit I am annoyed so I will remove myself from this conversation for the time being.

[Thriller]

You both know nothing of science, their a numerous intermediate forms found in the fossil records. Your willingness to talk so knowledgeable on something you know nothing about is the definition of ignorance moron.

link to transitional forms. Wasn't that hard to find
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Maybe the theory of evolution and science in general is so counter intuitive to you that you must change it to fit your world view. That is not what science is about. It is the search for the truth. It is self critical, peer reviewed and not self defeating. I have no problem with you people trying to prove evolution wrong but please do so with real evidence.

?HOW DO FALSE DICHOTOMY?

A little fake swearing and you remove your self from the dialogue. I guess i win then.
It wasn't even directed at you it was a statement of emotion. (my little jokes i inject in my writings go right over your head)

[Thriller]

Many species can adapt to new environments; this adaption is a natural characteristic of all life. Living things has always had the ability to adapt, then Darwin came along calling it Natural Selection and associated it with his theory "Evolution". Over time a species can change and become better suited to its environment, that's a natural occurrence and doesn't mean it has "Evolved" as according to "Evolution".

Breeding to make new subspecies? So what? That doesn't have anything to do with "Evolution" or this debate.

Your last statement tells me you don't know anything about evolution or you would be able to answer the question yourself?


Plz tell me what you know about evolution so that I may enlighten you.

[n3M351s]

I do not know what your getting at.

My late statement is referring to Natural Selection.

[Kit-Fox]

Removed