Another interesting concept to consider in evolution regards the way we think, including the evolution of my brain, how we process memory, and all the mind-brain interactions, including consciousness. Perhaps one may explain how our brain evolved so much that synapses can fire 10 million billion times per second? (Case For A Creator, page 309)
I do not mean this personally; I certainly do not wish for an argument outside the thread topic, but I also do not always appreciate "illogical, unfounded claims." 🙂
And we have yet to mention the fascinating and extraordinary truths about us that make us the way we are, and how we are so well suited to understand and adapt to our environment...
Simply acknowledge there are 10 trillion cells in the human body, cells of all different sizes, shapes, functions, and chemical structure, each cell performing a myriad of processes of immense complexity, working together; cells forming tissues, then organs, then systems.
To me, this is a miracle, and I attribute this to design.
We've only very, very barely scratched the surface of evolution. I don't care much about speculations or opinions, or theories, however logical they may sound.
In searching for truth, it is wise to consider facts. And I will ignore (and won't care) about posts unrelated to the topic.
I find it amusing that people are completely convinced that their preconceptions of reality are accurate; for example, people believe that their God, beliefs, reality, is the only reality. We take ourselves far too seriously. We should laugh at ourselves more often. (I know I do.) 🙂 I find it equally so when we try to relate to immensely complex concepts far beyond our understanding in laymen terms and be convinced that we are correct, even when our basis for believing is totally incomplete.
No hot chicks in this forum, I’ll be leaving now. 😉 Notably, debating evolution won’t allow it to occur; propagation of the species is essential for evolution.
Personally, I believe in the giant spaghetti monster, and will be waiting for the day that we sprout wings. 🙄 Of course, this may be off topic, but everything I’ve written here may have been equally meaningless.😉
Originally posted by YugaIt was not intended as an insult but merely a statement of fact. You made a claim and implied that it was obvious and undeniable which it is not.
I do not mean this personally; I certainly do not wish for an argument outside the thread topic, but I also do not always appreciate "illogical, unfounded claims."
And we have yet to mention the fascinating and extraordinary truths about us that make us the way we are, and how we are so well suited to understand and adapt to our environment...
Clear evidence for evolution. Especially the fact that although we are well suited we are not perfectly suited.
Simply acknowledge there are 10 trillion cells in the human body, cells of all different sizes, shapes, functions, and chemical structure, each cell performing a myriad of processes of immense complexity, working together; cells forming tissues, then organs, then systems.
Simply acknowledge that on the typical beach there are more than 10 trillion grains of sand carefully sorted and forming lovely patterns. Clear evidence for intelligent design. Do you conclude that whenever you encounter something complex that an intelligent being:
1. designed it specifically
or
2. designed the processes that allowed it to happen.
If 1 then each and every beach is carefully laid out by the hand of God. If 2 then evolution does not violate your principle.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI acknowledge the occurence of microevolution. However, the evolutionary chain appears incomplete. An issue previously posed: how may a living thing evolve from something that is non-living? We may explain it all away, but we simply don’t know.
You didn't expand your 'lack of intermediate forms' claim. Would you like to do so and show how it in any way could be considered a flaw in macroevolution.
Doing a quick Google search, turned out this website. It generally provides good evidence against evolution.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm
Nine evidence topics against evolution, supported in total by 168 supporting points against evolution. The quantity of evidence in itself is irrelevent, but the points themselves are not.
And EVIDENCE #1 states...
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Perhaps there are better websites, more informed opinions, but this is more than enough.
(Edit: Regarding systems, many of the systems in the cell that become operational would have to become operational at the same time..."letting amino acids randomly interact for 125 million years...life will not emerge...the probability of forming a rather short protein at random would be 10^125...a minimally complex cell would need 300-500 protein molecules...would have to occur in a span of 100 million years...[compelling argument against random chance]" ...from "A Case For A Creator"... There were many, many sources of evidence against evolution...Has anybody read the book or seriously studied the arguments for and against evolution and have opinions on it?)
Originally posted by YugaA statement clearly made to either deceive or based on ignorance. Every fossil and every life form both living and past is a transitional form. That is what evolution is all about.
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
What is interesting is that the same site frequently uses the term 'kind' a non -scientific term including more than one species. This clearly implies that the writers accept that one species can share a common ancestor with another and that one species can and has evolved into another in the past.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere likely is some bias, that is true. I have not thoroughly examined the website, and I have yet to fully come to my own conclusions.
Every fossil and every life form both living and past is a transitional form. That is what evolution is all about.
I am quite aware that evolution has quite a strong basis on transitional evolutionary forms. I believe if one is honest with oneself, one may deduce that there is quite a compelling argument that there may be missing transitional forms because there are missing transitional forms.
And I would appreciate it, if you would not quote me out of context, particularly as those words were stated from the website. (I specifically wrote that the statement I posted was stated by EVIDENCE #1.)
It is permissible to selectively criticize some of the arguments made against macroevolution, but there is simply little proof for macroevolution...the probability that macroevolution occurred appears to be zero.
And I doubt I'll see concrete evidence here (or probably even anywhere else) that could persuade me in the least bit otherwise. 🙁:'(
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think you have two statements here which are contradicting each other.
We do know how with evolution. We just don't know every biochemical detail of every change that occurred over the 3-4 billion years that life has been evolving.
In the first statement you say we know how evolution did something. In the next you say we do not. Or we do not know how in the details.
I think that if you don't know how then your belief that evolution is the cause is something akin to or in a similiar class to a faith (for lack of a better word).
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhether Genesis 1:2 discribes the things as they immediately came out of the creative act of God is not that settled of a contextural issue as you assume. It is evident that a belief that it does NOT discribe that way pre-dates the invention of geology. It can be traced back to the second or third century AD by Jewish readers of the Hebrew text. I said Jewish readers not Christian ones.
Re science catastophism;
Well, we typically have a reason for thinking there was some catastrophe. For example, in rock strata from around 65 million years ago there is a layer of the element iridium. Iridium is exceptionally uncommon on earth, but common on meteorites etc. Therefore, considering the layer is global (indicating it hit the earth [i I'm quite modest, but don't suffer fools gladly) - I just have to be sharper than you.
Secondly, it is your belief that God means there was never, and never is, and never will be problems of a contrary will to God's will. You think "If God's will exists then it is all good and no other contrary will can be in existence and the bad effects of a contrary will cannot exist."
What you postulate may be something towards the universe is moving by way of persuasion. In other words it is arrived at through trials that eventually it is realized that God's will is best and all wills should be in harmony with God's will. It may not have necessarily been such from the moment all other creatures with their own wills were created.
Omnipotence of God does not have to mean that contrary wills to God's will cannot exist.
It is possible that since the creation of other beings one among them could lead an opposition party of contrary wills to God's wills. And it is possible that temporarily such an opposition pary need be exposed, manifested, deemed terribly ineffective, and dealt with, for the sake of harmony of will to God's will from their demise onward into eternity.
Originally posted by YugaI assume you wrote that wrong so will try to guess at your meaning.
I am quite aware that evolution has quite a strong basis on transitional evolutionary forms. I believe if one is honest with oneself, one may deduce that there is quite a compelling argument that there may be missing transitional forms because there are missing transitional forms.
As I said, all life forms are transitional forms. Just looking at all the life forms living today without looking at the fossil record, leads one to believe that species are related and that macro evolution makes sense.
And I would appreciate it, if you would not quote me out of context, particularly as those words were stated from the website. (I specifically wrote that the statement I posted was stated by EVIDENCE #1.)
I apologize if in shorting the text I made it appear to be your words. However you implied you agreed with them.
It is permissible to selectively criticize some of the arguments made against macroevolution, but there is simply little proof for macroevolution...the probability that macroevolution occurred appears to be zero.
The evidence (proof is a mathematical term) for Evolution is so overwhelming that the vast majority of scientists consider it sufficient to call Evolution fact. As there are no alternative scientific Theorys it becomes the parsimonious choice.
And I doubt I'll see concrete evidence here (or probably even anywhere else) that could persuade me in the least bit otherwise. 🙁:'(
This thread was about evidence for problems with evolution not evidence for Evolution. For compelling evidence, do a Biology course or read a book on the subject. Once you understand the theory, you will find that every life form is evidence for it.
Originally posted by jaywillEver seen a graviton? Difficulties harmonizing quantum mechanics and relativity?
I think you have two statements here which are contradicting each other.
In the first statement you say we know how evolution did something. In the next you say we do not. Or we do not know how in the details.
I think that if you don't know how then your belief that evolution is the cause is something akin to or in a similiar class to a faith (for lack of a better word).
You must have faith in gravity; it's just like the faith required to believe in the Easter bunny.
Originally posted by stockenProbably the best post on this forum!
what's wrong with evolution?.. well, just look at us... destructive organic filth dripping with enough arrogance to think we're the crown of creation... the stench of our self deluded notion that our ability of abstract thought is incredible because it's the limit of our mental abilities... if there's actually a creator behind evolution I'm sure xe's very fr ...[text shortened]... s... so enjoy it people... that and the knowledge i won't be able to read my own post...
Originally posted by YugaI do not remember all 7 characteristics of life, but I assume that viruses cannot breathe.
Response to scottishinnz,
Antibiotics work on bacteria, not viruses. That's antivirals. (Oops, my mistake.) 🙂
The non-living replicating structures (pre-life replicators) gradually evolved the characteristics of life (there are 7, viruses fulfil 6 of these).
I do not remember all 7 characteristics of life, but I assume that viruses ...[text shortened]... lieve; I respect and highly value freedoms in this regard. My sole intent here is to learn.
As has been pointed out breathing is not a characteristic of life. Only some things breathe. Sulphur reducing bacteria, for example, don't breathe but are definitely alive. Same is true of anything that lives in an anaerobic environment, like gut bacteria.
There is no evidence that I am aware of that supports the claim that life evolved from non-life.
Well, this isn't quite true. For example, if you look at the chemical composition of our bodies, all organisms follow roughly the same recipe. This corresponds exceptionally well to the conditions in which life evolved. There are rocks from very, very early in the earth's history that can be used to reconstruct the environment pretty well (although necessarily not perfectly). This sort of inference isn't uncommon in biology. For example, the cytoplasm in our cells is roughly the same composition as seawater (belies an aquatic past), but 1/3rd the composition. If you look at present day fish, their cytoplasm is at the same concentration as the seawater they live in.
I presume life had to originate at some point, either from some sort of cosmic force or creator that has always been in existence, and always will be in existence.
Why do you presume this? You are making an a priori assumption here. No wonder you can't get past it - you are assuming the very thing that you are trying to investigate!
Most scientists do not believe that life came from either a "cosmic force" or any sort of creator. It's just not necessary. You've pointed out yourself about viruses. They're not alive, but it would not take very much for them to be alive. Indeed, the very simplest living things are strikingly similar to viruses in many ways. Life is not black and white. There is a vast, overwhelming, number of species (maybe around 40 million) that represent every possible gradation from single, parasitic, cells through to the most complex body plans of birds and mammals. Us included. From this point of view, there is little need to go to the fossil record to look for "missing links" (incidentally every organism which ever lived is a link!) they all exist right here, right now.
Reiterating what I have just written, if something is in existence, something had to cause its existence, or it has always existed. Something cannot be created out of nothing. There is no debating this point!
Actually, there is a huge amount of debating this point. You assume (again with that word) that all things must be caused. And I'd agree within the universe.
Time is simply a dimension. A dimension of space-time. Hawkins' work in the 1960's showed this to be the case. Causality required things to happen before and after each other. Causes have to exist before effects. The problem with the beginning of the universe is that before it time didn't exist. It's simply a logical inference. Anyhoo, without time, causality doesn't operate. It isn't required to operate. The universe could have simply sprung out of nothing - we can never know. It might have always existed - but how can you test this?
The question goes the other way though. Think about Christianity. Where does the authority flow from? God? Nope. Wrong. All authority flows from the bible. The bible is the word of God. How do we know this? Because the bible tells us so!!! How do we know the bible is true? Because it's the word of God? How do we know it's the word of God? Because it tells us so!!! Classical circular reasoning! Here's the rub though. What if it's wrong? How could you tell that?
Originally posted by YugaThe "argument from big numbers" has been widely discredited nowadays. The reason is that it simply isn't how evolution has ever been postulated to work.
I acknowledge the occurence of microevolution. However, the evolutionary chain appears incomplete. An issue previously posed: how may a living thing evolve from something that is non-living? We may explain it all away, but we simply don’t know.
Doing a quick Google search, turned out this website. It generally provides good evidence against evolution.
...[text shortened]... book or seriously studied the arguments for and against evolution and have opinions on it?)
The argument from big numbers is basically an argument against saltation, not evolution. Saltation is, I, and just about every other evolutionist on the planet would agree, utter crap. The ultimate incarnation of saltationism is creationism.