Proof Against Evolution

[universal_brother]

Natural selection happens because those who are the fittest are the most likely to survive. Since they survive longer, they will produce more offspring. Since genetic traits are passed on to offspring, there is a greater chance of the genetic traits of those who are fit (including those that make them fit) becoming more apparent.

There is no guarantee that this will happen, it is just more likely. Since this is the case, you would also expect a smaller percentage of neutral and negative traits to prosper but you would also expect a greater percentage of positive traits to prosper.

There is no overall direction or plan to these changes... each change is independent of every other and although they can be seen to conform to a generalisation, this generalisation does not govern them.

Changes are not random, it's Natural Selection up to here.

And now it's Natural Randomness from here:-

Therefore these changes can be said to be random.

The readers being tricked!!

 

[JerryL]

Changes are not random, it's Natural Selection up to here.

Mutations are chaotic. From the intended meaning of the earlier poster "random".

"Natual selection" is a name for a simple statistical fact: Things better suited to survive are more likely to survive. It's not random nor not-random. It's simply true.

The processes which kill off creatures are also chaotic. The most suited to survve may get struck by lightning, the least suited may have many children. Except in extreme negative cases, the tendancy to live or die is only a tendancy.

 

[logician]

"No, but geological processes that can affect evolution are, such as meteor or comet strikes, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, drought which causes famine, etc.

Yes. Are they relevant however?"

LOL, Are you kidding, big changes in the environment is what drives fast-paced evolution, according to the puctuated equilibria theory. Under periods of stasis, evolutionary change will be much slower.

 

[JerryL]

LOL, Are you kidding, big changes in the environment is what drives fast-paced evolution, according to the puctuated equilibria theory. Under periods of stasis, evolutionary change will be much slower.

The logic there is that, over time, things become very suited to their envyronment. The more suited something is, the less likely it is that a change will offer an advantage. Changes in envyronment make a given creature less suited, thereby increasing the likelyhood that a mutation will offer a comparative advantage.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., big changes in the environment is what drives fast-paced evolution, according to the puctuated equilibria theory.

I do not recall Gould or Eldridge saying this.

Under periods of stasis, evolutionary change will be much slower.

Said differently: during periods characterized by a lack of change, change will be much slower. OK.

 

[Yerda]

Yes. Are they relevant however?

LOL, Are you kidding(?)

No.

big changes in the environment is what drives fast-paced evolution, according to the puctuated equilibria theory.

I was explaining to our protagonist that selection is not 'random'. Geological processes are irrelevant at this point.

 

[bender118]

I took a portion of my time in life and devoted it to studying evolution, i like to wiegh propabilities, look at the odds, and see if it is possible in any case.

My beleif- The Theory of Evolution is False, although some creatures do change over time, but not in a evolutionary way.

I was standing outside by my house and i saw a tree. Where does a tree come from? From a seed? and the seed comes from a tree? Which came first? What is the chance that the tree just happened to have roots, that happened to know how to obsorbed water, and the tree happened to have a trunk, which happened to know how to transfer water to the leaves, and it just happened to have leaves, that knew how to obsorbed light from the sun, and it just happened to know how to store it, and so on, and so on.

To beleive in evolution is to believe that almost everything "just happened." Evolution cannot explain the begining. At what point did something exist? Did all things come from that same Big Bang point? What chance was there that life would arise out of all of this?

The big bang created matter. Some of this matter is carbon, hydrogen, and a host of other gases. Some of these elements converged onto an area on space around a large asteroid (which we call earth). Due to gravity, the elements are attracteed to this large rock, forming a layer of gas called an atmosphere. Convieniently, roughly 8 light minutes from earth, a blob of hydrogen was undergoing fusion, creating heat and light. This enegy goes into the earth's atmosphere and the earth heats This heating causes movement of the atmosphere creating lightning storms (massive discharges of electricity. This electricity zaps a group of gases, creating a biological compound, which we call an amino acid. The amino acids bond together to create a protein. Protiens clump togethere to form cell organelles, which form together to form cells. Cells join together to form tissue. tissue forms ogether and creates organs, which form organ systems, whihc form organisms.
And i think it is a 1 in a Billion chance that this would all occur.(ill find the link) Just remember that there are trillions of galaxies witch billions of stars and planets. Odds are itll happen in at least one planet

 

[logician]

"..., big changes in the environment is what drives fast-paced evolution, according to the puctuated equilibria theory.

I do not recall Gould or Eldridge saying this.
"

Of course they implied it, the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs opened up vast ecosystems for mammals to expand into, and speciation was rapid until the niches were filled.

 

[An-D]

These two paragraphs contradict one another.

If you had devoted any real time at all into the study of evolution, you would not have spouted such a naive load of drivel as appears in the second paragraph i selected.​

First off, this is a really rude and accusative thing to say. We all can study things objectivly, but we all have our subjective, personal beliefs. It's not cool to accuse someone of not studing enough due to their personal beliefs. Secondly, going back to:

My beleif- The Theory of Evolution is False, although some creatures do change over time, but not in a evolutionary way.

To beleive in evolution is to believe that almost everything "just happened." Evolution cannot explain the begining. At what point did something exist? Did all things come from that same Big Bang point? What chance was there that life would arise out of all of this?

Scientific evolution, the stuff kids learn in grade school, isn't ment to explain the beginnings of life. It's ment to explain how teradactose (sp) turned into birds and how the Kakapoo Parrot on the Island of New Zeland got onto the island and why now the parrots lost the ability to fly. These parrots flew onto the island years and years ago, but htere were no pereditors for this bird, so the birds lost their ability to fly because 1)there was no need to fly away from preditors and 2)if there's no need to fly, then there's no need to use up all that energy flying for no reason. That's what wevelution explains. Evolution as a theory of creationism has just as much evidence as the theory of Adam and Eve or Man comming up from the ground in apachie tradition (i think it's apachie, but not sure there...so don't quote me on that. If you really want to know, I will find out for you). So, to not believe in evolution I think ignors the basic laws of nature. Like ignoring gravity, or as one of my professors say, "Believing that evolution is just a theory is like believe that washing your hands to get ride of germs is justa theory". From there you could say that these laws are created and contolled by God, but you have no evidence to back up that argument. What it all comes down to is evidence, and evolution (in the non-beginning-of-everything form) has that. I'm sorry, but there is no evidence for proving that God makes everything evolve and change and work. And trust me, people have been searchign for that evidence since Einstein.

 

[Yerda]

It's not cool to accuse someone of not studing enough due to their personal beliefs.

In Halcyon's defence the accusation was made due to clear (and easily cured) ignorance (on the other dude's part).

Scientific evolution, the stuff kids learn in grade school, isn't ment to explain the beginnings of life. It's ment to explain how teradactose (sp) turned into birds and how the Kakapoo Parrot on the Island of New Zeland got onto the island and why now the parrots lost the ability to fly. These parrots flew onto the island years and years ago, but htere were no pereditors for this bird, so the birds lost their ability to fly because 1)there was no need to fly away from preditors and 2)if there's no need to fly, then there's no need to use up all that energy flying for no reason. That's what wevelution explains. Evolution as a theory of creationism has just as much evidence as the theory of Adam and Eve or Man comming up from the ground in apachie tradition (i think it's apachie, but not sure there...so don't quote me on that. If you really want to know, I will find out for you). So, to not believe in evolution I think ignors the basic laws of nature. Like ignoring gravity, or as one of my professors say, "Believing that evolution is just a theory is like believe that washing your hands to get ride of germs is justa theory". From there you could say that these laws are created and contolled by God, but you have no evidence to back up that argument. What it all comes down to is evidence, and evolution (in the non-beginning-of-everything form) has that.

Sound reasoning. Tragic spelling.

Try www.dictionary.com when you suspect your spelling is off. I do and it's saved my blushes once or twice.

 

[Ryan2065]

Try www.dictionary.com when you suspect your spelling is off. I do and it's saved my blushes once or twice.

Or you can use the forum's spell checker...

 

[An-D]

Eh! You got my point...

 

[danifilth]

When you point out the errors in Evolution, you skip the points of creationism, no man (nor woman) knows where life started, whether it is a 'god' or a 'big bang'. But what we have to realise that evolution wasn't pieced together by scientists who had some days off, it started off as an idea and has been growing ever since, whilst creationism was just told, like it is a perfect answer, but isn't life not to be content but to further our knowledge. Creationism was so we had quick answers, evolution is an answer which has proof.

 

[Non-believer]

If you believe in a Creator and also in evolution, then how did we all evolve in 6500 years?

 

[JerryL]

If you believe in a Creator and also in evolution, then how did we all evolve in 6500 years?

That would be "young Earth and evolution".

 

[rocka21]

It's amazing how many Creationists believe that. It's utter nonsense. Evolution doesn't mean that everything "just happened;" it means the opposite of that. Of the unimaginably vast number of possible species that might have existed, only a tiny minority have ever actually existed; of those, only a minority are living now. The rise and fall of each species has been the result of a very long series of specific events. When Creationists say -- as they often do -- that evolution means everything "just happened," they betray the fact that they don't know anything at all about evolution. What evolution does mean, in simplified form, is this:

1. In populations of living organisms, changes occur over time.
2. The characteristics that conduce to survival and the propagation of genes, conduce to survival and propagation of genes.

The first is apparent to any rational observer; the second is a tautology.

The reason Creationists have resorted to political pressure to advance their views is that they don't have a leg to stand on, scientifically. They must depend on stirring up the most ignorant portion of the electorate to support policies that perpetuate ignorance; the denial of evolution really has no other chance of survival.

Creationists can't explain the beginning, either. How is it that God exists? Wherein are the origins of God to be found?

So if BOTH can't explain the beginning and are "theories", why do we teach one in public schools and not the other?

 

[Mister_T]

So if BOTH can't explain the beginning and are "theories", why do we teach one in public schools and not the other?

Because Creationism isn't Politically Correct.

 

[rocka21]

Because Creationism isn't Politically Correct.

BINGO:clap

 

[YamiB.]

No it would be because Creationism does not qualify as a theory in Science. I'm not sure, but it might not even qualify as a hypothesis because it cannot be proven or disproven.

 

[Yerda]

So if BOTH can't explain the beginning and are "theories", why do we teach one in public schools and not the other?

Both are taught in public schools. Creationism is taught in religious education courses where it belongs alongside other primitive mythologies. Evolution is taught in science classes, because it is a scientific discipline.

It's testament to the success and validity of science that creationists want to force their unscientific scripture into the science curriculum. Kinda like Nestle getting products listed under Fair Trade status.