Challenge to Evolutionsts

[Autodidact]

I promise I wasn't in the least trying to proselytize. And yes I did use a quote from Jesus ( A very Smart Being).
We do have some similarities with other creatures, I dont deny that. But we have some very, very big differances. We truly are the only upright Creature and I dont mean just walking on two legs , why is this? because its really not that helpfull compared to the other creatures that use their physical form for their survival and their enviroment. Darwin taught that the creature better suited to their enviroment survived. We have never completely been suited to our enviroment.

In what way? What do you mean? Can you document this in any way? What does it mean, "completely suited?" What Darwin figured out is that creatures that are sufficiently well adapted to survive and reproduce will do so, which will result in more of them. We are sufficiently well adapted to survive long enough to reproduce, so we're here.

Which tells me that Darwin did not consider all things. And yes more than anything we use our brains for our survival. Why so unlike the other creatures? Did nature have a plan? The fact that we are so different would make me wonder whether evolution ( an Idea Of the way we came to be) new what it was doing. Almost like there was an order to the creation. There is no other creature that tries to control any of the other creatures like we do ( authority). By chance did Moses know this when he wrote about the Order of the creation. By the way just because I speak of someone that is out of the bible dosn't mean Im trying to Proclaim God, although I do Believe in Him.
PS Im sorry if I posted in the wrong Forum. I want do it Again.

Do you have any idea what the ToE in fact says? Do you care?
Yes, we're the only creature that...
And eagles have the best vision, and only viruses reproduce in their unique way, and Sequoias are the biggest tree. And???

 

[painted wolf]

we are quite suited to our environments. Our hands and minds let us make what we need just like the apes do when they make tools. The difference is only in the level of tools we make... which has been evolving since the early apes appeared.
Our adaption is in our hands and minds.

Homo erectus was less tecnologically advanced than we are and they colonized most of the world. Not bad for a naked ape.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't understand what bipedalism has to do with supposedly "superior" human nature. Chickens are bipedal, and you can't get much dumber than a chicken.

One of the leading hypotheses for how humans developed is that when we became bipedal, this freed up our hands to use tools, which meant that a bigger brain became an advantage by increasing our ability to do useful things instead of a detriment by just being a resource drain on the body. Chickens, although they're bipedal, still can't do manual work with their wings. A chicken with a bigger brain wouldn't be particularily better at survival, but it would need to eat more than all the other chickens to fuel that brain.

Darwin taught that the creature better suited to their enviroment survived. We have never completely been suited to our enviroment. Which tells me that Darwin did not consider all things.

I'm not really sure what you're on about. Natural selection doesn't care a lick about how an organism becomes suited to its environment. Whether you grow fur all over your body or put on a coat makes no difference to how warm you are, or how able you are to survive in cold temperatures.

Our ability to problem-solve and build adaptations for ourselves is an adaptation. We're just fine in our environment... as evidenced by our continued existence.

 

[dance-above]

Our ability to problem-solve and build adaptations for ourselves is an adaptation. We're just fine in our environment... as evidenced by our continued existence.

The use of our brain, I understand this. Why so far flung from the other creatures? Where we meant to be so different?
Does evolution have A plan?
Is everything really just happenstance?
Did our brains devolop because our bodies lacked the abilities of other creatures? or did our body and brain devolop at the same time?
There is alot of questions to be asked about evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

we aren't that far flung from other creatures. Neanderthals were very like us intellectually. Along with many of the other Hominids. We are only the last in a line of species.

Dolphins, Elephants, Chimps and several other animals are also highly intelligent.... Elephants may be near out equals in many ways.

Naturally our bodies evolved with our minds.

Evolution doesn't have a plan... it isn't a thing its a process. However it isn't totally random either, it functions like other natural forces do.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

The use of our brain, I understand this. Why so far flung from the other creatures? Where we meant to be so different?

Who knows? Science is not about meaning, it's about how things came to be.

Does evolution have A plan?

Definitely not.

Is everything really just happenstance?

I don't believe so, but I don't think I can really know this.

Did our brains devolop because our bodies lacked the abilities of other creatures? or did our body and brain devolop at the same time?

More like the latter.

There is alot of questions to be asked about evolution.

Please ask any questions that you have, and I will try to answer them. Let's start with this: Do you know what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) says? Do you know what the evidence is that persuaded Biology to adopt it?

 

[Evolution_Not]

Hope this answers your first question:

from here. An excellent resource for questions about evolution.

I don't understand your second question. Do you know that individuals don't evolve, species do?

You had parents. It had parents. Thanks for the info btw, will
take me awhile to digest. Have to hunt down some nice big artist drawings.

In any event there is nothing here that would convince me that these evolved
and are not fully formed originals. Because they may share certain structures or
similarities is not proof to me either. And we weren't there.

Questioning Orthodoxy: Dr. Alan Feduccia Speaks on the Origin of Birds

 

[Autodidact]

You had parents. It had parents. Thanks for the info btw, will
take me awhile to digest. Have to hunt down some nice big artist drawings.

In any event there is nothing here that would convince me that these evolved
and are not fully formed originals. Because they may share certain structures or
similarities is not proof to me either. And we weren't there.

Questioning Orthodoxy: Dr. Alan Feduccia Speaks on the Origin of Birds

What is your point with this cite? Do you agree with Dr. Feduccia?

Do you know what the ToE says? Do you know what the evidence is in its favor? Do you know that science is not based on proof, so the issue of proof is irrelevant?

 

[Autodidact]

You had parents. It had parents.

Yes, and I'm just a little bit different from my parents, and my brothers and sister. And my children are a little different from me. Hmm....

 

[Valjean]

...and little differences, multiplied over thousands of generations, can produce some pretty major changes. If you acknowledge that some change occurs, then, unless you're a Young-Earth creationist, you have to admit that small changes can accumulate to produce big differences. After all, a species doesn't know to stop changing when it approaches some theoretical special barrier.

And what alternative mechanism do you imagine? Magic? How is divine prestidigitation a more plausible explanation than evolution?

 

[lowrider]

Aren't there really just 2 choices? God and evolution?

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

Send a PM for the link. Gotta have 15 posts before one can add links to their posts.

 

[yossarian22]

Aren't there really just 2 choices? God and evolution?

Many do not view the two as mutually exclusive

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

I think you are missing a ^ sin there. Anyhow, considering the time scale and sheer size of the universe, it is highly unlikely that life would have never formed by chance.

 

[Willamena]

Aren't there really just 2 choices? God and evolution?

Are you familiar with the phrase "false dichotomy"?

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

What is the source of this information, and what exactly is being calculated? Did you calculate it yourself?

 

[McBell]

Aren't there really just 2 choices? God and evolution?

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

Send a PM for the link. Gotta have 15 posts before one can add links to their posts.

Interesting.
And what, exactly, where Teddy LeBarge's odds of winning the lottery?

Oh wait.
He won.
So the odds are completely irrelevant.

Same thing here.
Debating the odds of something happening AFTER it has happened only gives you a bunch of meaningless numbers.

 

[lowrider]

The odds are not irrelevant if it never happened the way science says it did.

 

[Willamena]

The odds are not irrelevant if it never happened the way science says it did.

Perhaps I'm confused, but it would seem to be the only instance in which it would be irrelevant.

 

[lowrider]

Willamena,
If it never happened the way science claims then the odds remain relevant. If it did happen the way science claims then the odds become irrelevant because it has already
happened. In other words it's irrelevant because evolution beat the odds. There is really only creation and science. I'll take creation for myself.

 

[McBell]

Here is the link:
Mathematical Probability Shows Evolution is Ridiculous | Evolution is mathematically impossible.

 

[Papersock]

Um... single cells did not come about by chance.

 

[McBell]

Willamena,
If it never happened the way science claims then the odds remain relevant. If it did happen the way science claims then the odds become irrelevant because it has already
happened. In other words it's irrelevant because evolution beat the odds. There is really only creation and science. I'll take creation for myself.

I contend that it did happen that way.
Now if the only thing you can offer is some BS line that the odds of it happening prove it could not have happened, then you have nothing.
As I have shown here:

Interesting.
And what, exactly, where Teddy LeBarge's odds of winning the lottery?

Oh wait.
He won.
So the odds are completely irrelevant.

Same thing here.
Debating the odds of something happening AFTER it has happened only gives you a bunch of meaningless numbers.
​

Since nothing more needs be said for those who actually understand the real science behind it...