Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Here's another source for education about evolution: Evolution | Natural History Museum
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution flaws which proves it fallacy.
- Thread starter jake0333
- Start date
I didn't say anything about how it came to exist. When you have a chance you should watch the video from my first post. A biologist would know more about the history and evolution of biology.
No mystery. Obviously fire has the intelligence to choose flammable materials.
Feel free to explain your reasoning.
Well, I guess that wraps it up, then. Thanks!
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
That's funny and so true.
If we were plopping out as "whole complete man", it would prove creationism and how special God made us. The fact that we have to go through a long process of developing from one cell to a complete person (which doesn't end until death since we're switching out almost all cells in our body within a 7 year period) rather supports our natural origin. If God had made us different and special, why isn't there anything different and special with our bodies or biological system? Why can't our bodies live without food? Why do we have to breathe, sleep, get injured, have to strengthen muscles, and so on? I don't understand why God had to create humans in such a way that we share over 95% of DNA code (much of it dormant code) with an animal? It's just ridiculous how much effort God went through to leave traces of evolution instead of creationism. It would make God a liar. And that doesn't make much sense. Nature preachers about God's true nature. What nature is, that's how God does it. Creationists really need to get with the program... (This wasn't a rant against you, btw
)
Last edited:
jmn
Member
Ignorance is a choice in the age of information.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No. Evolution is the name we give to a process, it is not conscious.
Yes. Those traits which you just described are the result of evolutionary processes.
Because obviously a mutation which did that would result in lower survivability, thus natural selection would select those mutations out of the gene pool.
See above.
Nobody had to "know" anything, these things were a natural result of mutation and environmental attrition. The clouds don't "know" that plants need water and that's why they rain - the rain was a resource that was available to the plants and thus natural selection and mutation lead to them being able to use that resource. Fishes absorbing of oxygen works on the exact same principle. I strongly suggest you do some research on evolution.
But you don't need to "understand" something for a biological or chemical system to make use of it. Your argument is nonsensical.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Does water understand how to make a snowflake?
How did dirt know how to make the Rocky Mountains?
Clearly chance can't have made the "Indian with an iPod".
Arguments from incredulity and ignorance are not generally well received... especially when you insist that you don't want to know how evolution actually works.
wa:do
How did dirt know how to make the Rocky Mountains?
Clearly chance can't have made the "Indian with an iPod".
Arguments from incredulity and ignorance are not generally well received... especially when you insist that you don't want to know how evolution actually works.
wa:do
i conclude.
1-without a female body and male carrying the half part of the DNA information, the reproduction process is not possible.
2-without the DNA guidance the reproduction processes are not possible
3- the development of the human body must go through stages, so evolution knows when to start which is step A and it knows when to end which is step Z.
4- evolution evolved living parts and it knew how to write the DNA code for the reproduction to happen inside the female body.
5- evolution and natural selections are unconscious processes, but they knew how to write and store the DNA reproduction informations so they must be conscious but you don't know yet? " i know that defy rationality and logic, but it's your choice "
6- evolution understand how to encode the sense of directions inside the DNA so a bird can migration and a hatched turtle babies know the direction of the water in darkness and for the cilia to know how to brush dirt toward the outside of the lungs.
7- the body can sense the missing part and with the help of evolution who can design it, they both made a mucus lining inside the stomach to stop the acid from digesting the stomach with the food.
8- evolution knows how to speak to light particle or light photons so we can seeing and it knew how to deal with sound wave kinetic energy so we can hear?
9- evolution knows that fishes need gills to breathe oxygen from water and that mammals need lungs to breathe oxygen from air?
10- evolution knows that the chest ribs must be flexible and it knew that the ribs must be engulfed in intercostal muscles to compress the chest cavity to force air outside the lungs? but is that even possible without the atmospheric pressure? so evolution made it too?
my conclusion is that evolution is ironicalness theory.
1-without a female body and male carrying the half part of the DNA information, the reproduction process is not possible.
2-without the DNA guidance the reproduction processes are not possible
3- the development of the human body must go through stages, so evolution knows when to start which is step A and it knows when to end which is step Z.
4- evolution evolved living parts and it knew how to write the DNA code for the reproduction to happen inside the female body.
5- evolution and natural selections are unconscious processes, but they knew how to write and store the DNA reproduction informations so they must be conscious but you don't know yet? " i know that defy rationality and logic, but it's your choice "
6- evolution understand how to encode the sense of directions inside the DNA so a bird can migration and a hatched turtle babies know the direction of the water in darkness and for the cilia to know how to brush dirt toward the outside of the lungs.
7- the body can sense the missing part and with the help of evolution who can design it, they both made a mucus lining inside the stomach to stop the acid from digesting the stomach with the food.
8- evolution knows how to speak to light particle or light photons so we can seeing and it knew how to deal with sound wave kinetic energy so we can hear?
9- evolution knows that fishes need gills to breathe oxygen from water and that mammals need lungs to breathe oxygen from air?
10- evolution knows that the chest ribs must be flexible and it knew that the ribs must be engulfed in intercostal muscles to compress the chest cavity to force air outside the lungs? but is that even possible without the atmospheric pressure? so evolution made it too?
my conclusion is that evolution is ironicalness theory.
How ironic.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Rather than debate and point out every flaw of your position, I invite you to study and learn biology and all of your questions will be answered. A very large part of the answer is out DNA is indeed "programmed" to do what it does, but of course due the countless replications things get crossed, switched, and sometimes goes wrong, which is what drives biodiversity, which is evolution.
But no, evolution is not sentient, is not aware, is nothing more than a term to describe one of the mechanisms of nature, very much to how we use the term gravity to describe the effects of larger objects having a pull on smaller objects.
All of these objections you keep throwing out are easily countered, but if you tell us "don't try to explain evolution to me" you sabotage the whole discussion. You can't claim heavier than air flight is impossible then forbid anyone from bringing up the physics involved.
This is a debate forum. If you want us to answer your arguments you can't forbid us from citing the salient facts.
Q: If the arguments and examples you cite were so reasonable, don't you think biologists would have realized this by now and dropped their theory?
This is a debate forum. If you want us to answer your arguments you can't forbid us from citing the salient facts.
Q: If the arguments and examples you cite were so reasonable, don't you think biologists would have realized this by now and dropped their theory?
Last edited by a moderator:
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
This thread is ridiculous since evolution discusses "what happens", not "how things happen." Michael Behe agrees with Darwin about macro evolution, meaning that he agrees with Darwin about "what happens." He only disagrees with Darwin about "how evolution happens," or, as Behe put it, "the mechanisms that are responsible for evolution.
It is the job of biologists, and biochemists, to observe "what happens," not to explain why things happen.
Millions of Christians have no problems with macro evolution. Why should they since they believe that God is responsible for macro evolution?
Any biologist knows that evolution does not address the existence of God. The National Academy of Sciences
is neutral on the existence of God, but it accepts macro evolution.
It is the job of biologists, and biochemists, to observe "what happens," not to explain why things happen.
Millions of Christians have no problems with macro evolution. Why should they since they believe that God is responsible for macro evolution?
Any biologist knows that evolution does not address the existence of God. The National Academy of Sciences
is neutral on the existence of God, but it accepts macro evolution.
Last edited:
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
Well, the fruits we eat today are the results of centuries of controlled breeding. Most wild fruits aren't that tempting for humans.
The fruits of various plants are used for seed dispersal by having hooks and thorns that get stuck in the fur animals or by being tasty, just to give two examples. Plants that developed mechanisms that meant that their seeds were able to get further away from the mother plant, even if it was just a tiny bit, gained an advantage and were more likely to spread and survive.
The thing we most often call fruits are parts we and other animals eat, and then the seeds are dispersed unharmed together with excrement, which gives a good boost when it comes to growing. Some fruits are buried by animals that hoard and are thus "planted". Fruits that were tasty, if only a little, were more likely to get eaten or saved as food. The plants never chose to produce tasty fruits, but the ones that had tastier fruits than the others were more likely to survive and spread.
When it comes to poisonous fruits that are toxic to humans, they are often tolerated by other species.
To use a simplified fictional example:
1. A plant produces bitter fruits. None of the unicorns want to eat it.
2. A mutation blocks the part that produces the bitterness and thus the fruit tastes more neutral. A few unicorns start eating it and the fruit with the neutral taste becomes the dominant one after many generations.
3. Another mutations leads a big amount of the sugars produced by the plants into the fruits. Now the unicorns all go crazy about it and eat lots of it! Soon the sweet fruit is dominant.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
It isn't as simple as "each carries half the DNA information", DNA replication isn't just 50% mum and 50% dad. Also, asexual reproduction exists.
Is DNA Guidance some kind of molecular sat-nav? Because, as far as I'm aware, that phrase means nothing.
You clearly do not understand what evolution is or how it works. It has little to do with human embryological development, and there is no point at which evolution "stops" occurring. It doesn't "know" in advance what it is aiming for any more than a river "knows" its heading for a lake.
Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution doesn't "write and store" things, that's totally meaningless nonsense.
This is called "natural instincts", which are a result of physiological developments in the brain which are a result of evolutionary processes. Again, it's not conscious, it's just the result of selective environmental pressures working on living populations.
Yep.
Again, it doesn't "know" anything. These things were part of our environment, so we adapted to incorporate the ability to sense these things.
See above.
Yes, evolution did all of that. Unconsciously.
Based on the fact that you don't understand how it did these things? That's called an argument from ignorance. I suggest you go and read up on evolution theory and come back when you at least have a working understanding of how evolution theory accounts for these things, since you've clearly not made the least bit of effort to do so. These arguments are as silly as someone going to a forum that discusses gravity and saying "What makes no sense to me about gravity is how it KNOWS that the planets need to move and the earth should go around the sun. Obviously its sentient, so the theory is just absurd!"
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
How does my mouth know how to laugh when I read ridiculously funny things? It is a mystery that can only be explained by the fevered imaginings of ancient desert nomads!