• 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!

Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
If you think pictures of specific species is evidence, you do not understand genetics at all. It is genetically impossible for the nose of land animal(pakicetus), which you conveniently left out. to become the blowhole of a sea creature. There is no way genetically for legs to become fins. Your whale "experts" are either lying or ignorant.

Using similar bone structure may have made sense until DNA was discovered, Now it separates all similar into separate and distinct species.

On the contrary, Genetic research has amply and extensively demonstrated the mechanisms underlying these transformations further bolstering the case for evolution. You seem to have been sadly misled. But no matter, eliminating ignorance and delusion is the prime duty of any Hindu. :p So read on.

The Genetic Mechanisms Behind Evolutionary Transformations 1

The first question in discussing how novel body forms (like arms and ears) can emerge from older body forms of ancestors is to ask the more current question:- How does the human, animal or plant body, each of whose cells have the same DNA sustain so many different types and shapes of tissues and organs?

The answer to that question is simple. Different stretches of the DNA is active in different types of cells. Thus a nerve cell will have a different stretch of DNA activates (and the rest passivated) in comparison to the heart cell. How does a cell know what to activate and what to passivate. It receives information from the outside regarding
a) What its neighbors are doing and
b) What geometric position it is in with respect to the body (especially within the growing embroyo).

These signals comes in terms of chemicals and chemical and osmotic/Ph (saltiness and acidity) gradients that turn on and off multiple switching genes and hence activate and passivate various stretches of the DNA.

What this means that the cells belonging to the limb (in adults) and responsible for growing the limb (in embroyos) will have a different retinue of activated genes and switches than corresponding cells responsible for the heart or the face and jaws for example.

The big discovery in developmental biology has been that:-

The cells responsible for the fins of fish are the same cells responsible for the arms and legs of animals in all cases. They have the same switching genes and the same activated stretches of DNA, and these switches and DNA stretches differ by only a few mutations from those of lobe finned fish in a way that show clear family relatedness. The entire mechanism of formation of fins and fomation of limbs are essentially identical with minor variations in themes caused by the mutations. When the older fin making gene versions are put back on these limb making cells of animal embroyos, they start to transform into finds rather than limbs (and vice-versa).


In the 1960-1970, very important embryological work identified two sets of developing tissue in any growing tetrapod embroyo (i.e. all animals with legs and arms or wings - birds, reptiles, mammals, amphibians) that governs the manner in which the limbs grow. They are the same tissue in all tetrapods. One controls the development of the limb itself. Remove it, and limb development stops. Add that tissue in somewhere and a new limb crops up. The other controls the development of the five-fingered hand (its called the ZPA). Add it to another part of the limb, and you will get another hand or feet, remove it and you will get a feetless or handless limb. After 1990, when genetic investigations became feasible, researchers began to look for the specific gene that gives these developmental tissue their ability to guide limb development. That gene proved to be the developmental gene called Sonic Hedgehog gene, and yes it is found to be active in the developmental limb buds of all tetrapods and yes, they are all mutated versions of each other showing clear signs of common ancestry. The DNA recipe to build upper arms, forearms, wrists and digits are virtually identical in every creature that has limbs.

I will continue the discussion further in the next post, but for those who are impatient, here is quick link

Limb Evolution



 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
No, this is factually incorrect. Salamander is not a species, there are many species of salamander. Same goes for gulls.

You're alluding to the Christian creationist 'kinds' concept, which is an unscientific one.
You just contradicted yourself: Salamander is not a species---there are many species of salamanders Gulls are also a species, Each kind is a different SPECIES of gull. I am alluding to science not the Bible.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
You just contradicted yourself: Salamander is not a species---there are many species of salamanders Gulls are also a species, Each kind is a different SPECIES of gull. I am alluding to science not the Bible.

What are you talking about? I said that neither gull nor salamander are a species, that's biological fact. There are many species of gull and many species of salamander.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Again, another assuming that there is a purpose to evolution: the emergence of humans, and that once that purpose is fulfilled, the prior species no longer has a purpose...utter nonsense.

That descendants developed different features and that some became bears, or cats, or humans, or cows, or mice, or whatever else, has NOTHING TO DO with whether or not the parent species, or any of the other offspring species, survive and thrive and evolve into other things.

What would apes and humans evolving have to do with the evolution of whales from a very ancient common ancestor, down different lines of descent? Under evolution, unless they are in a close relationship, such as predator and prey, there is no connection, except that both are examples of evolution occurring.

th


You're an agnostic so how can you say there is no purpose to evolution? The purpose of evolution is to sell you the concept of mutation is good and that mutated products such as GM products and seeds are good instead of products to shorten your life and harm the environment is an irreversible way. It's the rich leading themselves to make more money off the lives of the masses. Surely, the US government will be in favor as they do not want people to live to 120. How much money would they have to pay out then?

Surely you can see the folly of evolution. The people who believe such rubbish can be compared to sheep or cattle being led to slaughter. I, too, fell into its spell because there was nothing like it in biology when it was first introduced. Then evolutionary thinking got expanded like the universe into other areas of science. There was no limit to its power. The power of bullsh*t. If you're going to lie, then lie big. What started me thinking evolution may be wrong was the eternal universe became pseudoscience and the Big Bang Theory took its place. A generation of people before me believed in the Piltdown Man. That turned out to be a fraud. How could science be a fraud? Then I started reading what the creationists were saying and I realized they were the ones who created science. Sure, their theories turned out to be pseudoscience, too, like geocentrism, but their theories corrected it. That's what science does. Evolutionary theories do not correct itself to show that evolution and mutation are wrong.

The creation scientists even came up a God of the Gaps argument (after Sir Francis Bacon's warning?) which was to not rely on God as the answer when one could not find one in the real world. The atheist cattle took this argument and changed it to what creationists do during the BBT debates. It was for their own self-serving purpose.

You talk about parent and child species and I can tell you do not know very much about evolution. So science isn't your strong suit. That does not bother me, but you should question evolution and be skeptical of it just like you are of God's existence. You have to question why Roundup, a product to kill weeds, also kills grass and is harmful to our environment and can shorten our lives. It's the things they don't tell you that will kill you.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
The purpose of evolution is to sell you the concept of mutation is good and that mutated products such as GM products and seeds are good instead of products to shorten your life and harm the environment is an irreversible way.

Actually, GMOs are not mutated.

Crops which are mutated, including massive random mutagenesis, using radiation or chemical mutagens, are allowed much more freely than GMOs, even though in reality they are nowhere near as reliable.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Good grief, resorting to books published by the ultra conservative Encounter Books! No wonder your outlook is screwed up.
And a book on biology written by a philosopher (David Stove). What next books on astronomy written by plumbers. In any case, Stove did accept evolution.

"In his final years Stove began to examine and criticise evolutionary biology. This surprised and dismayed many of his supporters. However, Stove's attack on biological evolution was not as radical as it appeared – he accepted evolution was true of all living things, and said he had no objection to natural selection being true of more primitive organisms. What he wanted to attack was the allegedly distorted view of human beings proposed by some "Ultra-Darwinists". For example, he misattributed J. B. S. Haldane's famous quip that he would "lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins" to the Oxford biologist W. D. Hamilton, who had recently developed ideas of kin selection, and suggested that such ideas are probably false, and certainly unverified. Stove argued that these sorts of strong claims are often made by hard-line sociobiologists, yet they are seldom pointed out even by many of their opponents.
source


.

Ha ha. One of the atheists said to read more in their argument for evolution. This spud is probably a liar who does not read himself and could not explain evolution if it hit him in the face. And I'll listen to the critics and David Stove who is a well known author instead of your opinion Skwin. Sorry, dude. Your argument is weak sauce.

David Stove: Annotated List of Books

Books by David Stove (Author of Darwinian Fairytales)
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Ha ha. One of the atheists said to read more in their argument for evolution. This spud is probably a liar who does not read himself and could not explain evolution if it hit him in the face. And I'll listen to the critics and David Stove who is a well known author instead of your opinion Skwin. Sorry, dude. Your argument is weak sauce.

David Stove: Annotated List of Books

Books by David Stove (Author of Darwinian Fairytales)
I guess you have read the book? Yes?
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Actually, GMOs are not mutated.

Crops which are mutated, including massive random mutagenesis, using radiation or chemical mutagens, are allowed much more freely than GMOs, even though in reality they are nowhere near as reliable.

Genetic modification is done by high schoolers nowadays. What happens when seeds and food products are modified? What happens when they disperse and added as part of feed?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
For one who is supposed to know science, this question shows a definite bias. Why don't you ask Skwim since he is the one who has the generalized opinion of David Stove?
You linked his work did you not? Are you linking a book you have never even read even cursorily?
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Genetic modification is done by high schoolers nowadays. What happens when seeds and food products are modified? What happens when they disperse and added as part of feed?

It varies widely, depending on the product involved. There are various safeguards involved, which are getting very good.

In a perfect world, where everyone was well fed and wouldn't be helped by higher food production, I suppose I wouldn't see the need. But we don't live in that world. And to feed everyone, this is an invaluable suite of technologies, which is also much safer than pretty much any other agricultural technology which is already widely in little-restricted use.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
You linked his work did you not? Are you linking a book you have never even read even cursorily?

Again, for someone who is supposed to be scientific, it does not do well for you to question me. If I prove to you that I have read this book, then will you get down on your knees and apologize to me for having an anti-creation science bias rendering all your links in this thread moot?

Please make my day.

th
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
It varies widely, depending on the product involved. There are various safeguards involved, which are getting very good.

In a perfect world, where everyone was well fed and wouldn't be helped by higher food production, I suppose I wouldn't see the need. But we don't live in that world. And to feed everyone, this is an invaluable suite of technologies, which is also much safer than pretty much any other agricultural technology which is already widely in little-restricted use.

The feeding the world propaganda is BS. Did you know that?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Again, for someone who is supposed to be scientific, it does not do well for you to question me. If I prove to you that I have read this book, then will you get down on your knees and apologize to me for having an anti-creation science bias rendering all your links in this thread moot?

Please make my day.

th
I have asked you a question. Have read the book? Yes or No. If yes, are you interested in discussion any particular objection raised in the book? If no, why did you link it?

Answer the questions.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Again, for someone who is supposed to be scientific, it does not do well for you to question me. If I prove to you that I have read this book, then will you get down on your knees and apologize to me for having an anti-creation science bias rendering all your links in this thread moot?

Please make my day.

th
And No. I won't either retract or apologize for anything I have said in this thread till now.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
th


You're an agnostic so how can you say there is no purpose to evolution? The purpose of evolution is to sell you the concept of mutation is good and that mutated products such as GM products and seeds are good instead of products to shorten your life and harm the environment is an irreversible way. It's the rich leading themselves to make more money off the lives of the masses. Surely, the US government will be in favor as they do not want people to live to 120. How much money would they have to pay out then?

Surely you can see the folly of evolution. The people who believe such rubbish can be compared to sheep or cattle being led to slaughter. I, too, fell into its spell because there was nothing like it in biology when it was first introduced. Then evolutionary thinking got expanded like the universe into other areas of science. There was no limit to its power. The power of bullsh*t. If you're going to lie, then lie big. What started me thinking evolution may be wrong was the eternal universe became pseudoscience and the Big Bang Theory took its place. A generation of people before me believed in the Piltdown Man. That turned out to be a fraud. How could science be a fraud? Then I started reading what the creationists were saying and I realized they were the ones who created science. Sure, their theories turned out to be pseudoscience, too, like geocentrism, but their theories corrected it. That's what science does. Evolutionary theories do not correct itself to show that evolution and mutation are wrong.

The creation scientists even came up a God of the Gaps argument (after Sir Francis Bacon's warning?) which was to not rely on God as the answer when one could not find one in the real world. The atheist cattle took this argument and changed it to what creationists do during the BBT debates. It was for their own self-serving purpose.

You talk about parent and child species and I can tell you do not know very much about evolution. So science isn't your strong suit. That does not bother me, but you should question evolution and be skeptical of it just like you are of God's existence. You have to question why Roundup, a product to kill weeds, also kills grass and is harmful to our environment and can shorten our lives. It's the things they don't tell you that will kill you.
Another diatribe bereft of actual information. So it's all a BIG conspiracy! Wow! I'm convinced!

I actually do know quite a bit about biology and ecology, along with several of the social sciences, not that you'd ever recognize it, because so far I haven't seen anything in your posts that suggests you understand anything about science in general or any field in particular.

So, you won't be on ignore, because I don't do that, but it will be very unlikely that I will respond to you again, ever.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Another diatribe bereft of actual information. So it's all a BIG conspiracy! Wow! I'm convinced!

I actually do know quite a bit about biology and ecology, along with several of the social sciences, not that you'd ever recognize it, because so far I haven't seen anything in your posts that suggests you understand anything about science in general or any field in particular.

So, you won't be on ignore, because I don't do that, but it will be very unlikely that I will respond to you again, ever.

So, as a self-avowed agnostic you judge me and disregard the truth? It's not just I who can think for themselves and understand where all the money comes from to fund the evolutionist professors and scientists. I am able to follow the money trail thank you. And if you are so willing to accept mutation and worship evolution, then please eat as much GM products, supplements and use their products around your house. Let me know if this elongates your life. In a few years, tell me that I, beenherebeforeagain is living a better life through chemicals and now a better life through mutant products.

I gave Monsanto as an example. I should know. My ex-gf used to work for them. She did very well and is a genuine millionaire in today's dollars. I, too, can go to work for them but then I would know how dangerous their products are while I do not think she knew. Ignorance is bliss, but I could be just as rich as she is in a few years.

Maybe you should listen to what a liberal says about it?

 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Or better yet, beenherebeforeagain, tell me how the human species follow Darwinism and the survival of the fittest or how the strong survive and the weak die off. Tell me how this competition to survive explains altruism in human beings? Or is that a Darwinian Fairytale haha?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Again, for someone who is supposed to be scientific, it does not do well for you to question me.
OMG. What's next, a "So's your old man!" It's as if I was back in grade school listening to the kid at the back of the class make up excuses for not doing his homework. . . again!.
However, this is kind of amusing, so I'm giving you a LIKE ;) for its entertainment factor.


.
 
Last edited:
Top